Appeal No. 2000-0859 Page 4
Application No. 08/777,668
(Paper No. 14, filed December 31, 1998) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants 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 claim 9 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007