Appeal No. 2002-1531
Application No. 08/828,548
Henley et al. (Henley) 5,526,353 Jun. 11, 1996
Iwami et al. (Iwami) 5,604,737 Feb. 18, 1997
White et al. (White) 6,014,379 Jan. 11, 2000
(filed Nov. 9, 1996)
Claims 1-8, 11-17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
anticipated by White. Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over White in view of Henley. Claims 10, 19, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Iwami.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 24, mailed Apr. 25, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 23, filed Jan. 25, 2001)
and reply brief (Paper No. 25, filed Jun. 5, 2001) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
To the extent that the rejection may be based on the principles of inherency -
since White does not expressly describe that which is claimed -- we note that our
reviewing court has set out clear standards for a showing of inherency, which have not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007