Appeal No. 97-1206 Page 5
Application No. 08/219,555
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Fischer. Rather than repeat the
arguments of the appellants or examiner, we make reference to
the appeal brief, reply brief, and examiner’s answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation
relied on by the examiner as support for the rejection. We
have also considered the appellants’ arguments contained in
the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of
the rejection and arguments in rebuttal contained in the
examiner’s answer. After considering the record before us,
it is our view that the Fischer does not meet fully the
invention as recited in claims 1-5. Accordingly, we reverse.
As a preliminary matter, the appellants contends that for
purposes of the appeal the claims do not stand or fall
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007