Appeal 2007-3373
Application 10/477,363
1 Examiner's Answer
2 The Examiner found, pointing to various portions of Berg, that Berg
3 describes the subject matter of the claims on appeal. Examiner's Answer,
4 pages 3-7.
5 Other findings
6 The subject matter of claim 1 is anticipated by Berg.
7 The subject matter of claim 9 is not anticipated by Berg.
8
9 E. Principles of law
10 An anticipation requires a prior art reference to describe every
11 limitation in a claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
12 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
13 Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Baxter Travenol
14 Laboratories., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
15 What a reference describes is a question of fact. In re Trans Texas
16 Holdings Corp., Nos. 2006-1599, -1600, slip op. at 18 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22,
17 2007).
18 When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are
19 argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the
20 group and decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the
21 ground or rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone. 37 C.F.R.
22 § 41.67(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
23 A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
24 considered an argument for separate patentability of the claims. Id.
25
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013