Appeal 2007-0353
Application 09/255,352
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Sato US 6,246,804 B1 Jun. 12, 2001
(filed Nov. 14, 1995)
Claims 1-32, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sato.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed waived [see
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
ISSUE
Under 35 U.S.C § 102(e), does Sato have a disclosure which
anticipates the invention set forth in claims 1-32?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found if
the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013