Appeal No. 1999-2702
Application No. 08/509,867
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Phillips. Claims 4, 6, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Phillips.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed Jan. 19, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed Dec. 21, 1998) and reply
brief (Paper No. 13, filed Mar. 15, 1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
"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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007