Ex Parte JACKSON - Page 3

          Appeal No. 2000-0004                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/872,004                                                  

          rejections, we make reference to the examiner's final rejection             
          and answer (Paper No. 6, mailed June 8, 1998 and Paper No. 12,              
          mailed July 2, 1999) for the complete reasoning in support of the           
          rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed               
          April 26, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.                             

               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     
          respective positions articulated by the appellant and the                   
          examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                      
          determinations which follow.                                                
               We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under             
          35 U.S.C.  102(b).  We initially note that a claim is                      
          anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the              
          claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a              
          single prior art reference.  Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil              
          Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert.              
          denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).  The inquiry as to whether a                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007