Appeal No. 1999-0597
Application 08/592,812
and the answer for the respective details thereof.
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, the 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.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon supports the
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 22-26.
Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4, 10, 11,
19, 20 and 22-26 as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Faris. Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007