Appeal No. 2001-1571
Application 08/958,844
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief (Paper No. 15), the
reply brief (Paper No. 17) and the Examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 16) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the Examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
Appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs. We reverse.
Before entering into the analysis of the rejections, we note
below the guidelines for the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
A prior art reference anticipates the subject of a claim
when the reference discloses every feature of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently (see Hazani v. Int'l
Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
At the outset, we note the wide groupings of the claims at
page 2 of the reply brief, which generally agrees with the
grouping and the arguments presented in the brief, where claims 1
and 5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are elected to be argued
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007