Appeal No. 98-1297
Application No. 08/555,836
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being clearly anticipated by Towns.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the 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. As a result of our review, we have determined that
the rejection should not be sustained. Our reasoning in
support of this conclusion follows.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007