Appeal No. 2001-0463 Page 4
Application No. 09/250,863
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 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e), 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).
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as
follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007