Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
Reference
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Cullen et al (Cullen) 5,335,290 Aug. 2, 1994
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Cullen.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the1
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration been given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 9 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007