Ex parte BAIL - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2000-0007                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/586,919                                                  


          filed March 18, 1999) 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 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.                                                


          The anticipation rejection                                                  
               We will not sustain the rejection of claims 13 to 17, 20               
          and 25 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b).                                            


               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).                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007