Appeal No. 2001-2382 Page 3
Application No. 09/376,461
(1) Claims 1-4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Chao.
(2) Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeBlock in
view of Hoy and Streiter.
(3) Claims 2-4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
DeBlock in view of Hoy, Streiter and Blackmon
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 9) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the Brief (Paper No. 8) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 10) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007