Appeal No. 1998-1389 Page 4
Application No. 08/553232
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant'
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer. Upon careful
consideration of the record, we reverse each of the rejections
set forth by the examiner, and enter a new ground of rejection
against claim 37 under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
We begin with the rejection of claims 49 and 51 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Brotsky. Anticipation is a
question of fact. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The inquiry as to whether a
reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject
matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is
described by the reference. A prior art reference
anticipates the subject matter of a claim when the reference
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007