Appeal No. 1999-2278 Page 5
Application No. 08/641,442
which appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
briefs have not been considered. See 37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants' arguments
set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse,
for the reasons set forth by appellants.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants note (brief, page 10), at the outset, that as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007