Appeal 2006-2637
Application 10/178,878
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. See RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, as pointed out by Appellants in the Briefs, the
Examiner has not established that the rejected claims read on the manifold
depicted in drawing Figure 4 of Mukerjee, as further described in the text of
that reference. In particular, the Examiner has not fairly detailed how the
center housing (80, Fig. 4) of Mukerjee’s manifold includes structure that
describes the here-claimed manifold limitations requiring a middle plate
having a plurality of openings, an upper partitioned element defining a
pattern of upper chambers that is located between the middle plate and an
upper plate of the manifold, and a lower partitioned element defining a
pattern of lower chambers that is located between the middle plate and a
lower plate of the manifold.
Because we agree with Appellants that all of the argued manifold
limitations required by the appealed claims have not been established as
being described by Mukerjee, we need not address the other claimed features
that Appellants argue as missing from Mukerjee in reaching our
determination that the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case of
anticipation.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 102 rejection.
§ 103 Rejection
In rejecting claims 4 and 5 as being obvious over Mukerjee and
Elangovan, the Examiner relies on the additional teachings of Elangovan for
establishing the obviousness of the features of dependent claims 4 and 5.
The Examiner does not explain how Elangovan would teach or suggest the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013