Appeal No. 96-1191
Application 08/344,624
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant 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 rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections 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 Kadowaki neither anticipates
nor renders obvious the invention as set forth in claims 1-11.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by the disclosure of Kadowaki.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007