Appeal No. 2002-1924 Page 3
Application No. 09/102,342
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. 27, mailed April 3, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 26, filed March 1, 2002) and reply brief
(Paper No. 28, filed May 10, 2002) 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 based on Sullivan
We sustain the rejection of claims 18 to 23, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Sullivan, but not the rejection of claims 27 and 30 to 32.
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. See In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Verdegaal
Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007