Appeal No. 2001-1214 Page 3
Application No. 09/213,726
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and the answer (Paper No. 15, mailed November 15, 2000) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 14, filed
October 19, 2000) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection based on Hummel
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 17 to 19, 22 and 25 to 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hummel.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007