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.
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 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