Appeal No. 2001-0189
Application No. 09/033,873
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, Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Brief 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 Moynihan reference does not fully meet the invention as
set forth in claims 1-6. With respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection, we are also of the view that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would
not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
invention as recited in claims 1, 3, 5, and 6. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Moynihan.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007