Appeal No. 2006-2529
Application No. 10/428,792
The reference of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation is:
Laney 5,907,920 Jun. 1, 1999
According to appellant, claims 1-12 stand as one group. Accordingly we
will confine our decision to the independent claim 1.
ISSUE
The sole issue for our consideration is whether Laney anticipates claim 1.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The prior art may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it non
novel, either expressly or inherently. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301
F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 US
907 (2003). Express anticipation occurs when the prior art expressly discloses
each limitation “i.e., each element” of a claim. Id.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that Laney discloses a breech plug or percussion nipple 14 for use
in a muzzleloading firearm with a barrel. Laney is comprised of a generally
cylindrical body 22 (provided with two wrench flats) with a first end 16 and a
second end 20. The first end 16 is a percussion nipple where cap 18 is placed. The
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013