Appeal No. 2002-2204
Application 09/187,897
pages 3-4].
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation relied on by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon supports the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-37. Accordingly, we affirm.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007