Appeal No. 1997-1131
Application No. 08/395,119
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s
arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that Bailey does not fully meet the invention as set forth in
claims 1 through 18. We are also of the view that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would
not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as recited in claims 19 and 20.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We also use our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) to enter a
new ground of rejection of independent claim 1. The basis for
these conclusions will be set forth in detail below.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 through 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bailey. Anticipation
is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007