Appeal No. 2001-0373 Page 3
Application No. 09/122,255
No. 13, mailed December 1, 1999) and the answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed July 10, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 19,
filed May 8, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed August
15, 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 find ourselves
in agreement with the position of the appellants as set forth
in the brief (pp. 13-17) and reply brief (pp. 1-7) that claims
1 to 4 are not anticipated by either Harris or Sorenson.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As stated in In
re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007