Appeal No. 2001-1609 Page 3
Application No. 09/031,778
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper
No. 17, mailed October 23, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 16, filed August 9, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No.
18, filed December 1, 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
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007