Appeal No. 1997-2444
Application 08/248,941
page 4).
Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as3
being anticipated by Higashimoto. We reverse this rejection
for reasons which follow.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellant and the examiner and agree with
appellant that the aforementioned rejection is not well
founded.
Accordingly, we reverse the stated § 102 rejection.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim
must be identically described in a single prior art reference
for it
to anticipate the claim. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832,
15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, it is well
settled that the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re
3We note that the physical entry of the amendment filed
August 14, 1995 (Paper No. 10) has not, as yet, been
completed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007