Appeal No. 2001-1530
Application No. 08/981,676
answer (Paper No. 25, mailed Jan. 23, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 24, filed Nov. 8, 2000) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 USC § 102
Since appellant has indicated that all the independent claims 1 and 12 fall
together in one group, we will select independent claim 1 and address appellant’s
argument with respect to this claim. Since appellant has indicated that all the
dependent claims stand or fall together in one group, we will select dependent claim 5
and address appellant’s argument with respect to this claim. (See brief at page 3.)
"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." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems. Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007