Appeal No. 2005-1348
Application No. 09/534,466
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
A claim is anticipated only when a single prior art
reference expressly or inherently discloses each and every
element or step thereof. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices
Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the examiner
presents a reasonable basis for alleging inherency, the burden
shifts to appellants to come forward, if they can, with evidence
to the contrary. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ
563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169
USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971).
In the instant case, with regard to Jurkewitz, the examiner
contends that Jurkewitz increases and decreases the infeed
tension of the web in response to a signal from the web speed
measuring device 32 indicating the printing press operating mode
based on press speed. The examiner’s reasoning is set forth at
pages 3-4 of the answer:
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007