Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
Claims 1-9 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Wilder.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 10) and
Answer (Paper No. 11) for the respective details.
OPINION
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, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Wilder reference fully meets the invention as set forth
in claims 1-9. Accordingly, we affirm.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007