Appeal No. 1999-0226 Page 6
Application No. 08/447,217
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.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7,
9, 11, 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Tautvydas.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
All the claims under appeal recite a water impermeable
envelope/capsule filled or containing "an aqueous solution of
polyethylene glycol."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007