Appeal No. 2002-0606 Page 3
Application No. 08/989,574
mailed September 11, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 19, filed July 9, 2001) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
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 anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 5, 15 to 17, 20 and 22 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
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007