Appeal No. 1996-2481 Page 4
Application No. 07/828763
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections and evidence
advanced by the examiner. We also considered the arguments of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the record
before us, we cannot say that the evidence anticipates the
invention of claims 1-3, 11-15, and 42-45. It is our view,
however, that it anticipates the invention of claims 16-18.
In addition, it is our view that the evidence and level of
skill in the art would have suggested the invention of claims
19 and 20. We cannot say, however, that these would have
suggested the invention of claim 21. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part. Our opinion considers the anticipation of claims 1-
3, 11-18, and 42-45 and the obviousness of claims 19-21
seriatim.
Anticipation of Claims 1-3, 11-18, and 42-45
We begin our consideration of claims 1-3, 11-18, and 42-
45 by recalling that a prior art reference anticipates a
claim only if it teaches expressly or inherently every
limitation of the claim. Absence of any limitation from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007