Appeal No. 2002-2154 Page 3
Application No. 09/217,496
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 21, mailed March 17, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 20, filed February 28, 2002) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant 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 5, 8, 13, 14 and 16 to 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Morgan.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007