Appeal No. 2001-0484 Page 3
Application No. 09/116,409
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 9,
mailed September 28, 2000) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 8, filed August 28, 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 rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007