Appeal No. 97-1758 Page 5
Application No. 08/326,721
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 appellant’s
and examiner’s arguments. After considering the record before
us, it is our view that the evidence does not anticipate the
invention of claims 13 and 14. It is also our view that the
evidence and level of skill in the art would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention of
claims 1, 3-12, and 15-22. Accordingly, we reverse. Our
opinion discusses the novelty and nonobviousness of the claims
seriatim.
Novelty
We begin our consideration of the novelty of claims 13
and 14 by recalling that a prior art reference anticipates a
claim only if the reference discloses expressly or inherently
every limitation of the claim. Absence from the reference of
any claimed element negates anticipation. Rowe v. Dror, 112
F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007