Appeal No. 2002-0144
Application No. 09/000,759
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-13 and 21-26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Herz.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that claim 6, as reproduced in the
appendix to the principal brief, depends from a non-existent
claim 5.
We also note that, in accordance with the grouping of the
claims at the top of page 6 of the principal brief, all claims
will stand or fall together as a single group. Accordingly, we
will focus on independent claim 1.
An anticipatory reference is one which describes all of the
elements of the claimed invention so as to have placed a person
of ordinary skill in the art in possession thereof. In re Spada,
911 F.2d 205, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
We have reviewed the examiner’s statement of the rejection
as well as the rationale therefor and appellant’s responses
thereto and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6,
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007