Appeal No. 2005-1369
Application 10/307,464
For a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the appellants and by the examiner regarding these
rejections, we refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the
Answer respectively.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the Answer and below, we
will sustain the rejections advanced on this appeal.
With regard to the § 102 rejection, it is well settled
that anticipation is established when a prior art reference
expressly or inherently contains each and every limitation of
the claimed subject matter. See Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm.,
Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668-69 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
Thus, a finding of anticipation is not forestalled
merely because, as argued by the appellants, Cavagna fails to
1(...continued)
consider the individual claims to the extent that they have been
separately argued as well as separately grouped. See In re
Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1340 n.2, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1636 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). Also see former regulation 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(2003) as well as current regulation 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(September 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007