Appeal No. 1998-2334
Application No. 08/348,385
illustrated by independent claim 1, a copy of which taken from
the appellants’ brief is appended to this decision.
The reference set forth below is applied by the examiner
in the section 102 rejection before us:
Wu et al. (Wu) 5,354,511 Oct. 11,
1994
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Wu.1
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the above
noted rejection.
OPINION
We will sustain this rejection for the reasons set forth
in the answer and below.
The examiner regards the here claimed method as being
clearly anticipated by the Wu patent. The appellants’
contrary viewpoint is most succinctly expressed in the last
1The appealed claims will stand or fall together; see
page 5 of the brief and page 3 of the answer as well as 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(8)(July 1996). Accordingly, in resolving the
issues before us on this appeal, we need focus only on claim 1
which is the broadest independent claim on appeal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007