Appeal No. 2002-1460
Application 09/040,510
unpatentable over Alkofer.
Throughout the opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the
Appellant and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13
through 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 10, 12, 16, 19, 21,
and 24 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
1
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on March 21, 2001.
Examiner mailed a notice of defective brief on May 22, 2001.
Appellant filed a substitute appeal brief on June 20, 2001. The
substitute brief corrected the defects, noted by the Examiner.
We will simply refer to the substitute appeal brief as the brief
in the opinion. Appellant filed a reply brief on November 13,
2001. The Examiner mailed out an office communication on January
29, 2002 stating that the reply brief has been entered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007