Appeal No. 97-2562 Page 4
Application No. 08/492,241
brief (Paper No. 9, filed November 7, 1996) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is
our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner does not
establish anticipation of the subject matter of the claims under
appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Our
reasoning for this determination follows.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007