Appeal No. 96-2546
Application No. 08/001,825
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections 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, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Brief 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 Lee does not fully meet the
invention as recited in claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-14. We are
also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the level
of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention
set forth in claims 1-15. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, and
10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lee.
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007