Appeal No. 2002-1576
Application No. 09/426,516
Claims 11, 13-17, 20, and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Allen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Nov. 30, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, filed Sep. 17, 2001) and reply
brief (Paper No. 12, filed Feb. 12, 2002) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
In determining novelty, the first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define. In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). A patent
is invalid for anticipation when the same device or method, having all of the elements
contained in the claim limitations, is described in a single prior art reference.
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed.
Cir. 1989); Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 894, 221
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007