Appeal No. 2000-0358
Application No. 08/678,409
10, 14, 17 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bly and Hullot.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Brief1 and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16 and
18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We first will address the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9,
11-13, 15-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. It is axiomatic
that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the
prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
1
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on July 9, 1999, Paper No.
20. In response to the appeal brief, the Examiner filed an
Examiner's Answer, Paper No. 21, mailed August 2, 1999.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007