Appeal No. 1997-2294 Page 5
Application No. 08/284,183
Claims 8, 9, 14-30, 32, 33, and 40-50 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by McClure. Rather
than repeat the arguments of the appellant or examiner in
toto, we refer the reader to the briefs and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejection and evidence
advanced by the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the
arguments of the appellant and examiner. After considering
the totality of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 8, 9, 14-30, 32, 33, and 40-50.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin by recalling that a reference anticipates a
claim only if it discloses expressly or inherently every
limitation of the claim. Absence of any limitation from the
reference negates anticipation. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473,
478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With this in
mind, we address the novelty of claims 8, 9, 14-21, 29, 30,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007