Appeal 2007-1955
Application 09/841,965
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
ISSUES
(i) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(a), does Peterka have a disclosure which
anticipates the invention set forth in claims 1, 3, 4, and 7?
(ii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 5 and
6, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention have
found it obvious to combine Brown with Peterka to render the claimed
invention unpatentable?
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),
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013