Appeal No. 1998-0566
Application No. 08/396,005
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kanzelberger in view of Smith.
Claims 6, 7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kanzelberger in view of Rader.
Claims 8, 12 and 13 stand rejected as being unpatentable
over Kanzelberger in view of Rader and Fan.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the rejection, we make reference to the
Answers (Paper Nos. 12 and 14) for the reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the Briefs (Paper Nos. 10, 13 and 15)
for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected as being anticipated by
Kanzelberger. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each
and every element of the claimed invention. See In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007