Appeal No. 2002-1784
Application No. 09/583,333 Page 4
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, appellant's 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.
We observe at the outset that appellant elects (brief,
page 5) that
Group 1 Claims 1-3, 7, 13, 19, 25-27, 29, 35-37
and 41 stand or fall together;
Group 2 Claims 4-6, 8, 14-18, 20, 28, 30, 38-
40
and 42 stand or fall together; and
Group 3 Claims 9-12, 21-24, 31-34 and 43 stand or
fall together.
Accordingly, we select claims 1, 4, and 9 as representative of
the three groups set forth by appellant.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 13, 19, 25-27,
29, 35-37, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Drey. To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007