Appeal No. 2001-2530 Page 3
Application No. 09/115,250
Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Saida.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellant and the examiner concerning the issues before us in
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellant’s arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellant has not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejection for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellant states that the “appealed claims stand or fall
together . . .” (brief, page 3, item No. VII.). Consequently, we
select claim 16 as the representative claim in deciding this
appeal. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2000).
“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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007