Appeal No. 2002-1471 Page 4
Application No. 09/141,183
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, appellants' arguments set forth in the
brief along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer. Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part.
Appellants set forth (brief, page 4) three claim groupings,
listing claim 1 as representative of the first group; claim 8 as
representative of the second group, and claim 19 as
representative of the third group. Accordingly, independent
claims 1, 8, and 19 will be considered as representative of the
claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claim 14 will be
considered as representative of the claims rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
We turn first to claim 1. To anticipate a claim, a prior
art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007