Ex parte KORIYAMA et al. - Page 3

              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                        
              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.                                                       

                     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.                                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007