Appeal No. 2000-1514 Page 3
Application No. 09/038,450
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 17,
mailed May 9, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 16,
filed March 27, 2000) 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 issue
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007