Appeal No. 2005-2168 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/122,616
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 25 and 27
as being anticipated by JP’575. We initially note that a claim is anticipated only if each
and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject
matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the
reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only
necessary for the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
In support of this anticipation rejection, the examiner finds:
Japanese ‘575 shows and discloses and exhaust hood (1,2) having
deodorizing and sterilizing effect on a on air flow (1,2), including a pre-filter
(3), an ionizing electrode (4) and ultraviolet lamp (5) located upstream of a
photo catalytic reactive filter (6) and fan (7). [Answer at page 4].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007