Appeal No. 1998-0453
Application No. 08/381,306
Claims 13 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Brue or Brooks.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
1
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed May 5, 1997) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 20, mailed Oct. 2, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 15, filed Jan. 24, 1997), reply brief
(Paper No. 19, filed Jul. 3, 1997), and supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed Nov.
14, 1997) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
"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
1We note that in the answer, the examiner made a new grounds of rejection over Brooks and
maintained the prior rejection over Brue.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007