Appeal No. 2006-0912
Application No. 10/081,575
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude the examiner’s
Sections 102(b) and 103(a) rejections are well founded.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejections for essentially
the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in the Answer. We
add the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
ANTICIPATION
Under Section 102(b), “anticipation” is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The law of anticipation, however, does not require that
the prior art reference teach the purpose contemplated by the
appellants in the specification. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007