Appeal No. 1999-2070
Application 08/611,899
the reader to the Appellants’ Brief and Examiner’s Answer for2 3
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the argument of
Appellants and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 10-12, 15,
16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Gray. We will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gray. We
will also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16
and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Shelton and Johnson.
We first turn to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections.
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires
that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be
disclosed in a single prior art reference.” In re Paulsen, 30
2Appellants filed a Brief on Appeal (“Brief”)on September
30, 1998. This Brief was deemed non-compliant under 37 CFR
1.192(c). Appellants subsequently filed an amended Brief
(“Brief”) on November 6, 1998.
3The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ Brief, mailed an
Examiner's Answer on December 22, 1998.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007