Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 3
Application No. 09/033,145
No. 8, mailed September 7, 1999) and the answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed April 21, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
filed March 20, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
June 26, 2000) 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. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007