Appeal No. 96-3248
Application 08/022,347
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
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, the 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.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Nakano does not fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 9, 10, 12 and 21-23.
Accordingly, we reverse.
As noted above, each of the appealed claims is rejected
as being anticipated by the disclosure of Nakano. 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 as well as disclosing structure
which is capable of performing the recited functional
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007