Appeal No. 2004-2271
Application No. 09/731,650
Claim 11 as a representative claim of Group I;
Claim 12 as a representative claim of Group II;
Claim 13 as a representative claim of Group III;
Claim 14 as a representative claim of Group IV; and
Claim 15 as a representative claim of Group V.
If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is free
to select a single claim from each group and to decide the appeal
of that rejection based solely on the selected representative
claim. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465
(Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69
USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1, 6, and 11 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Block does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 1, 6, and 11. Accordingly, we affirm.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007