Appeal No. 2005-2711
Application No. 10/028,015
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
briefs have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of the claims
over Guzuk, we initially note that a rejection for anticipation
requires that the four corners of a single prior art document
describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly
or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art
could practice the invention without undue experimentation. See
Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d
1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-
79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 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), it is only necessary for the claims to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007