Appeal No. 2002-1240
Application 09/247,550
Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellants or the
Examiner, we make references to the briefs1 and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration been given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the
Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2 through 5, 7 through 10 and 12 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will first address the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. It is axiomatic that anticipation
of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior art
reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.,
730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 25, 2001.
Appellants filed a reply brief on November 6, 2001. The Examiner
mailed an office communication on November 27, 2001 stating that
the reply brief has been entered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007