Appeal No. 1996-2047
Application No. 08/274,141
Claims 1, 6 and 8 through 15 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Hanafusa. Claims 2 and 3
have been allowed by the Examiner.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6 and 8
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
1The Examiner mailed a communication on March 15, 2000
stating that in response to the reply brief filed on February
8, 1996, the Examiner has allowed claims 2 and 3 over the
prior art of record.
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on September 12, 1995.
Appellants filed a reply brief on February 8, 1996. The
Examiner held a communication on March 15, 2000 in response to
the reply brief filed on February 8, 1996. Thus, the Examiner
has entered and considered the reply brief and the reply brief
is properly before us for our consideration.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007