Appeal 2007-0683
Application 10/121,772
21. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details.
ISSUES
(i) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(b), does Nakanishi have a disclosure
which anticipates the invention set forth in claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, and
20?
(ii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 2-5,
11, 14-18, 21, and 22, has the Examiner established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on Nakanishi alone and in a separate combination with
Kaneko.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. ANTICIPATION
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),
citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.,
976 F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Anticipation
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013