Appeal No. 2003-0882 Page 3
Application No. 09/911,198
those arguments actually made by appellants have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37
CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse
essentially for the reasons set forth by appellants in the reply
brief. We turn first to independent claim 1.
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007