Appeal No. 2006-0028
Application No. 10/435,858
not have had access to the cited publications or found them
reasonably clear as to the terms defined.
Thus, the examiner has not advanced acceptable reasoning for
the proposition that the appellant’s disclosure, considering the
level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the
application, would not have enabled a person of such skill to make
and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, rejection of the claim.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) anticipation rejection
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not necessary that the reference teach
what the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read
on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the
limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference.
Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781,
789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007