Appeal No. 96-3950
Application No. 08/131,056
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the 3
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation
and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Dennis. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure
3The Appeal Brief was filed August 25, 1995. In response
to the Examiner's Answer dated December 6, 1995, a Reply Brief
was filed February 6, 1996 which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner without further comment on March 8, 1996.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007