Appeal No. 2002-2304
Application No. 09/419,157 Page 4
2002) for appellants' arguments thereagainst. Only those
arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37
CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, 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, 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.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse. We
begin with the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Zhu. To anticipate a
claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of
the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007