Appeal No. 2000-1472
Application No. 08/855,104
the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The § 102(b) rejection
We will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 1 through 4 based on Axthammer.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007