Appeal No. 1996-3194
Application 08/218,802
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the main brief and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of DeBalko does fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 1, 6, 8 and 9. We reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 2-5 and 7.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007