Appeal No. 1999-0578
Application 08/217,641
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner 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, the 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.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the prior art evidence relied upon by the
examiner is sufficient to support the rejection of claim 1.
We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 2-4,
8, 29 and 30. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Fukushima. 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007