Appeal No. 2002-0550
Application No. 09/264,770
Claims 1 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by either the admitted prior art, McNelly or
Misheloff.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 6),
the brief (paper number 10) and the answer (paper number 11) for
the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 21.
Anticipation is only established when a single prior art
reference discloses every limitation of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 516 U.S. 988. The examiner has made findings (final
rejection, pages 4 and 5) that the admitted prior art, McNelly
and Misheloff disclose all of the limitations of claims 1 through
21. Appellants argue (brief, pages 23 through 32) that substeps
(a.4) through (a.6) of the claimed invention are not disclosed in
the admitted prior art or the references to McNelly and
Misheloff, and that the examiner has not presented a sufficient
demonstration of how the claimed invention reads on the admitted
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007