Appeal No. 95-3889
Application 08/070,296
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Loo in view of appellant’s prior art admissions
on pages 1-5 of the specification.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Loo in view of Runaldue.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Loo in view of Runaldue and appellant’s prior
art admissions on pages 1-5 of the specification.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant
with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 7) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 14) and the appellant's brief (Paper No. 13) and reply brief
(Paper No. 15).
The Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that
the rejection should not be sustained. Anticipation is established
only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007