Appeal No. 2000-0327 Page 4
Application No. 08/745,330
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellant's arguments
set forth in the brief along with the examiner's rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the examiner's answer.
We reverse.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Thompson.
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.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a
claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.
As set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007