Appeal No. 1999-1848
Application No. 08/532,177
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed Dec. 22, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 16, filed Nov. 2, 1998) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claim, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we make the determinations which follow.
"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
invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems. Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation
resides with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). After the PTO establishes
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007