Appeal No. 1998-2610 Page 3
Application No. 08/451,950
reader to the brief and answer for the respective details1
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 appellant and examiner. After considering the totality of
the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 18 and 19. Accordingly, we reverse.
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).
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element
1We rely on and refer to the amended appeal brief, (Paper
No. 9), in lieu of the original appeal brief, (Paper No. 7),
because the latter was defective. (Paper No. 8.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007