Appeal No. 2001-0257 Page 3
Application No. 08/927,412
No. 21, mailed July 6, 1999) and the answer (Paper No. 27,
mailed February 24, 2000) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 25, filed January 13, 2000) and reply brief (Paper
No. 28, filed April 24, 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 reference, 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 2, 3, 8, 14,
16 to 19, 21 and 22 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007