Appeal No. 2002-1792 Page 3
Application No. 09/467,577
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. 16, mailed January 15, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed June 11, 2001) and reply
brief (Paper No. 17, filed March 25, 2002) 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 sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), but not the rejection of claims 9, 11 and 19.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007