Appeal No. 2002-0074 Page 3
Application No. 08/800,758
May 17, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the brief (Paper No. 39, filed March 30, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 43, filed July
17, 2001) 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 sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 14 to 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman
v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007