Appeal No. 2006-1436
Application No. 10/461,817
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 3.
Anticipation is established when a single prior art
reference discloses expressly or under the principles of
inherency each and every limitation of the claims invention.
Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d
1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Recla discloses a sensor tube 16 with an inner perforated
PVC conduit 12, a semipermeable membrane 14 wrapped around the
inner conduit 12, and an outer woven mesh sheath 15. Recla
states that the outer mesh sheath is used to “inhibit physical
damage to the tube” (column 3, lines 33 and 34), and that the
outer mesh sheath functions as “a protective woven mesh sheath
whose sole purpose is to protect the thin outer membrane” (column
4, lines 5 through 7).
According to the examiner (final rejection, page 3), the
outer woven mesh sheath 15 “while generally flexible, may be
considered at least locally hard and pressure resistant as in the
instant invention outer tube.”
The appellant’s response (brief, pages 9 and 10) is as
follows:
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner and in
addition to the declaration submitted on
August 18, 2004, enclosed herewith, is a
signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007