Appeal No. 1998-2037
Application No. 08/642,850
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejec-tion, we make reference to the answer, mailed January
23, 1998 (Paper No. 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief, filed September
15, 1997 (Paper No. 8) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. The determinations we have made and the reasons
behind them are set forth below.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Independent claim 3 calls for the combination of (a) a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007