Appeal No. 2000-0003 Page 4
Application No. 08/618,814
No. 12, mailed August 19, 1997) and the answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed November 6, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 19,
filed September 16, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed
December 4, 1998) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
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.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007