Appeal No. 1998-0343
Application 08/439,209
the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Ma does fully meet the invention as
set forth in claims 4-6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 23-25, 28-31, and
33. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims
18, 20-22, and 32. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007