Appeal No. 97-0604
Application 08/306,766
by the disclosure of Florida.
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 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 disclosures of Macy and Florida do not
fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 1-10.
Accordingly, we reverse.
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
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007