Appeal 2009-3941
Application 10/334,370
interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in
the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
2. Anticipation
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Anticipation of a 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, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting
Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778
(Fed. Cir. 1985)).
3. Obviousness
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d
1385, 1396 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329,
1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013