Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
as being unpatentable over Olsson.2
Rather then reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and
the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we agree
with the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being unpatentable over Flodin. However, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
unpatentable over Olsson and the rejection of claims 2 through
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson.
We first consider the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102 as being unpatentable over Flodin. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure
which is capable of performing the recited functional
2In our view, this should be claims 2 through 8 and 10
since claim 9 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and not
addressed in the text of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007