Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
The Examiner’s rejection relies on the following
reference:
Lewis et al. (Lewis) 5,303,042 Apr. 12,
1994
Claims 1 to 10, 12 to 15, 17 to 19, and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Lewis.2
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 3
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the Appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs.
It is our view that claims 1 to 10, 12 to 15, 17 to 19
and 21 are not anticipated by Lewis. Accordingly, we reverse.
In our analysis, we are guided by the requirements of
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Anticipation under 35
2The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
112 [answer, page 2].
3A reply brief was filed as paper no. 22 and was approved
for entry by the Examiner without further response [paper
no. 23].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007