Appeal No. 2004-0235 Page 3
Application No. 09/873,583
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 18, mailed April 22, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 17, filed January 28, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No. 19, filed June 26, 2003) 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007