Appeal No. 1998-1655 Page 4
Application No. 08/367,766
stand rejected under § 103 as obvious over Yamada in view of
Takahara. Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellants
or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the briefs and
answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the totality
of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner did not err
in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 20, 24, and 25. We are also
persuaded that he erred in rejecting claims 3, 8-10, 12-19,
21-23, and 26-29. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We begin by noting the following principles from Rowe v.
Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
A prior art reference anticipates a claim only if
the reference discloses, either expressly or
inherently, every limitation of the claim. See
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007