Appeal No. 1998-2309 Page 4
Application No. 08/277,035
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse,
essentially for the reasons set forth by appellants.
We begin with the rejection of claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), or in the alternative under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the teachings of Swartz.
Anticipation is a question of fact. In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The inquiry
as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on
what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and what
subject matter is described by the reference. A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007