Ex Parte SMITH et al - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2002-1327                                                        
          Application 09/218,247                                                      

          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the                       
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the            
          respective details thereof.                                                 
          OPINION                                                                     
          We have carefully considered the subject matter on                          
          appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence            
          of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as              
          support for the rejections.  We have, likewise, reviewed and                
          taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the                     
          appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the                
          examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections 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 does not support either of the            
          rejections set forth by the examiner.  Accordingly, we reverse.             
          We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8 and                     
          10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the                  
          disclosure of Sato.  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 recited functional limitations.  RCA Corp. v.                
                                         -3-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007