Appeal No. 1998-1094
Application 08/497,064
Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellants’ arguments
against the rejections as set forth in the brief.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 are not proper. Accordingly, we reverse.
At the outset we note that Appellants have elected
[brief, page 4] claims 1 and 3 to 14 as one group, and claims
15 to 20 as another group. We now consider the various
rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
There are two sets of section 102 rejections over two
separate references. But before we discuss them, we review
the pertinent case law.
We note that a prior art reference anticipates the
subject of a claim when the reference discloses every feature
of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.
(See Hazani v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997); RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007