Appeal No. 2002-2134 Page 3
Application No. 09/250,481
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 15, mailed May 31, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed May 21, 2002) and reply brief
(Paper No. 16, filed July 29, 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 3, 19 to 21, 23 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007