Appeal No. 99-0637 Page 3
Application No. 08/711,841
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1, 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by either Anderson or Silvis.
The complete text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by the appellants appears
in the answer (Paper No. 9, mailed June 29, 1998), while the
complete statement of the appellants' argument can be found in
the brief (Paper No. 8, filed April 24, 1998).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We shall sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Anderson.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under the principles of inherency, each and every element
of a claimed invention. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007