Appeal No. 1997-3224
Application No. 08/231,531
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the 1 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 10 through 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor will we sustain the rejection of
claims 1 through 8 and 20 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
1Appellants filed an appeal brief on April 15, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on September 11, 1996. On
November 26, 1996, the Examiner responded with a supplemental
examiner's answer thereby considering and entering the reply
brief. Appellants filed a supplemental reply brief on
January 30, 1997. On April 14, 1997, the Examiner mailed a
communication stating that the supplemental reply brief filed
January 30, 1997 has been entered and considered but no
further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
2The Examiner filed an examiner's answer on July 9, 1996.
The Examiner filed a supplemental examiner's answer on
November 26, 1996.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007