Appeal 2006-2438
Application 09/259,306
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Van Lintel WO 95/19502 Jul. 20, 1995
(Published International Application)1
Claims 4-6, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Van Lintel.
We refer to the Brief and Reply Briefs and to the Answers for a
complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by Appellants
and the Examiner concerning the issues before us on this appeal.
OPINION
Having considered the entire record of this application, including the
arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’
position in that the Examiner has not met the burden to show, prima facie,
that the prior art, as applied, renders the subject mater of the rejected claims
anticipated within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection advanced by the Examiner. Our reasoning follows.
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
accord Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d
1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
1 We rely upon and cite from an English language translation of this document by
Schreiber Translations, Inc. that is of record. Our references to Van Lintel in this
Decision are to the Schreiber translation of record.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007