Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 3
Application No. 08/413,284
The arguments of the appellant in opposition to the
positions taken by the examiner are set forth in the Brief and
the Reply Brief.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellant as set forth in the Answer and the
Briefs. The determinations we have made and the reasoning
behind them are set forth below.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
It is axiomatic that anticipation 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, for example, In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising a
filtration chamber and a filter having at least one planar
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007