Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102 as being anticipated by Peppers. Claims 3, 5 through 13
and 15 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Peppers in view of Paek.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 2
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 4 and 14 are
anticipated by the applied references.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on January 16, 1996.
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on June 17, 1996. The
Examiner responded to the reply brief with a letter, mailed
July 3, 1996, stating that the reply brief has been entered
and considered but no further response by the Examiner is
deemed necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007