Appeal No. 1999-2306
Application 08/639,284
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejection. 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 rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Lane fully meets the
invention as set forth in claims 18, 20 and 21. We reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 1-17, 19 and 22-28.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007