Appeal No. 1998-2679
Application No. 08/148,765
ANALYSIS
As the outset we note that Appellants have elected that
claims 1-3 and 5-10 are each independently patentable over
Newman and do not stand or fall together.
We have carefully reviewed the position of the Examiner,
[answer, pages 3-8 and supplemental Examiner's answer, pages
1-2], and the position of Appellants [Brief, pages 6-14 and
Exhibits A-E, reply brief, pages 1-5 and supplemental reply
brief, pages 1-10 with enhanced exhibits from the brief, (the
Hunt exhibit and the Billmeyer Jr. et al. exhibit)]. We reach
a conclusion that the Examiner is over-reaching in his effort
to reject the claims on appeal. Whereas we commend the
Examiner in answering each and every point which Appellants
have raised in their briefs, we are of the view that the
Examiner is stretching his reasoning to meet the claimed
limitations. We add below some elaboration for clarification.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102
A prior art reference anticipates the subject of a claim
when the reference discloses every feature of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently, See Hazani v.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007