Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 4
Application No. 08/395,719
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
9, mailed April 1, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 11, mailed May 20, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 8, filed March 8, 1996) and reply brief (Paper
No. 10, filed April 29, 1996) 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.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection
We sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bourcart.3
3A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007