Appeal No. 2002-0764
Application No. 09/131,960
Claims 11, 12, 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Golin in view of Gonzales.
Claims 13 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Golin in view of Huelsman.
Claims 14 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Golin in view of Huelsman and Gonzales.
Reference is made to the first Office Action (paper number
5), the briefs (paper numbers 11 and 13) and the answer (paper
number 12) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 6, 7,
9, 15, 20, 21 and 23, and the obviousness rejections of claims 2
through 5, 8, 10 through 14, 16 through 19, 22 and 24 through 28.
Anticipation is only established when a single prior art
reference discloses every limitation of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 516 U.S. 3378 (1995). The examiner has made findings
(first Office Action, page 2) that Golin discloses all of the
limitations of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 20, 21 and 23. According
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007