Appeal No. 2001-0154
Application No. 08/838,266
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 18) for the complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 15) for
the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 6, and 9 through 15 under 35 USC 102(b) as being
anticipated by Corcoran. 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 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007