Appeal No. 1996-4190
Application 08/311,710
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellant's arguments
against the rejections as set forth in the briefs.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us,
that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are not proper. Accordingly, we reverse.
Now we analyze the various rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 and 9 as being
anticipated by Sun or Stefansky.
We note that a prior art reference anticipates the
subject of a claim when the reference discloses every feature
of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently (see
Hazani v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1984)).
We first take the independent claim 8. The critical issue
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007