Appeal No. 98-0605
Application 08/383,191
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Whitman in view of Pigg.
The examiner's rejections are explained on pages 2-4 of
the final rejection. The arguments of the appellant and
examiner in support of their respective positions may be found
on pages 5-13 of the brief, pages 1-6 of the reply brief and
pages 4-8 of the answer.
OPINION
Having carefully considered the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and reply brief and the
examiner in the answer, it is our conclusion that none of the
above-noted rejections are sustainable.
Considering first the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10,
16, 19, 20 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Whitman, we initially note that in order to
establish antici-pation, a prior art reference must disclose
every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007