Appeal No. 2004-0193 Page 3
Application No. 09/165,272
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the supplemental
brief (Paper No. 16, filed February 5, 2003) 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 claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
Claim 32 reads as follows:
An article segregating device for open-ring type articles, comprising:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007