Appeal No. 1999-1574
Application No. 08/321,324
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 3
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs.
We reverse.
We note that there are two separate statutory grounds of
rejection which we consider below.4
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.
United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and RCA Corp. v. Applied
3A reply brief was filed as paper no. 24 on May 7, 1999.
The examiner noted the entry of the reply brief but filed no
further response to the arguments in the reply brief, see
paper no. 27.
4The rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
has been overcome and is not on appeal, see answer at page 2.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007