Παγε 3
Appeal No. 2006-0676
Application No. 09/718,473
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 7.
A claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 “if each and every limitation is found
either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
v. Ben Venue Labs, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1374, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1512 (Fed. Cir.
2001).
Appellants argue (brief, page 6) that the claims on appeal are not anticipated by
the teachings of Legault because Legault fails to disclose the separation and processing
of loose sheet material, fails to disclose an information carrier bearing information that is
specific to a group of sheet material, and fails to disclose that the processing of sheet
material includes examining fitness or obtaining information of loose sheet material.
Although we agree with the examiner’s contention (answer, page 3) that the
cover sheet 3 broadly functions as a separator card, and that bar code applicator 8
broadly functions as an information card, we agree with the appellants’ argument (brief,
pages 6 and 7) that Legault discloses a bound booklet of sheet material because of the
glued spine 2 of the booklet, and that Legault does not disclose any processing of loose
sheet material. For this reason alone, we must reverse the anticipation rejection of
claims 1 and 7 because Legault does not disclose “each and every limitation” found in
these claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007