Appeal No. 1999-0216
Application No. 08/526,197
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief along
with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the Axmear reference does not fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 1 and 4-7. We are further of
the view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill
in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in the appealed claims 2, 3, and 8-10. Accordingly,
we reverse.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1 and 4-7 as being anticipated by Axmear.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007