Appeal 2007-1630
Application 10/422,661
essential that Appellant use the correct application control number in any
subsequent communications regarding this appeal.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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 Pharm.,
432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “Anticipation of
a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art
reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir.
1999) (“In other words, if granting patent protection on the disputed claim
would allow the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art,
then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject
matter not in the prior art.”) (citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13-15
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13-
15 as being anticipated by Pombo. Since Appellant’s arguments have
treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Appellant presents four principal arguments:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013