Appeal No. 2007-0161
Application No. 09/797,287
Claims 5, 12, 13, 34, 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Rentschler in view of O'Brien.
We affirm these rejections.
Claim Grouping
Appellant argues individual claims 1, 10 and 22 separately. Therefore, we select
claims 1, 10 and 22, as representative of the rejected claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(September 13, 2004).
DISCUSSION
Anticipation
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 18, 19, 22, 30-33 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Rentschler.
The standard under § 102 is one of strict identity. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every
limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate
the claim. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Every element of the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the
claim. Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).
According to the examiner, Rentschler teaches each of the steps of the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013