Appeal 2007-4098
Application 09/962,887
Klabunde US 6,093,236 Jul. 25, 2000
The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
the disclosure of Klabunde (Answer 3);
2. Claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the disclosure of Klabunde (Answer 3-4);
2. Claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Blumer and Klabunde (Answer 4).
The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting the
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a).
The appealed subject matter in the above-identified application is
somewhat similar to those in the Appellants’ copending Applications
09/962,935 filed September 25, 2001 (Appeal No. 2007-4099), 09/962,971
filed September 25, 2001 (Appeal No. 2007-4100), and 09/962,972 filed
September 25, 2001 (Appeal No. 2007-4101). Accordingly, we will
consider and decide the propriety of the Examiner’s rejections directed to the
appealed subject matter in the present and copending applications
concurrently.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW, FACTS, ISSUES and ANALYSES
ANTICIPATION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference describes, either expressly or under the principle of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. In re Spada,
911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The law of
anticipation, however, does not require that the prior art reference teach
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013