Appeal No. 2002-1492 Page 3
Application No. 09/352,161
(Paper No. 20, mailed March 26, 2002) and the supplemental answer (Paper No. 27,
mailed March 18, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 19, filed February 28, 2002) and reply brief
(Paper No. 22, filed May 10, 2002) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation
resides with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 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 1429, 1431
(Fed. Cir. 1997). As stated in In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007