Appeal No. 2002-1180
Application No. 08/924,552
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Kobayashi et al. (Kobayashi) 5,404,255 Apr. 4, 1995
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 11 and 19-26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kobayashi.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
An anticipatory reference is one which describes all of the
elements of the claimed invention so as to have placed a person
of ordinary skill in the art in possession thereof. In re Spada,
911 F.2d 205, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
After reviewing the examiner’s rejections and rationales
therefor, we conclude that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation.
With regard to claim 1, the examiner sets forth an analysis
of Kobayashi, at page 2 of Paper No. 11, and cites various
portions of the reference which are alleged to teach various
claimed steps. However, the examiner appears to have omitted, or
ignored, certain claim limitations. For example, it is not
clear, from the examiner’s explanation of the rejection, how the
examiner is treating the claim limitation regarding the
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007