Appeal No. 2006-0112 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/194,739
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed July 05, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed April 12, 2004) and reply brief (filed June 21, 2004) for
the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
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, 2, 6, 8 and 11 to 13 under 35
U.S. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Jones. Initially we 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007