Appeal No. 2003-0138
Application 09/427,426
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 14 through 16, 18, 19 and 24 through 28
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Marshall.
Claims 5, 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Williams.
Claims 9 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Lyons.
Claims 20 through 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Marshall.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 9) and the
answer (paper number 10) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 7,
8, 14 through 16, 18, 19 and 24 through 28, and the obviousness
rejection of claims 5, 6, 9 through 13 and 20 through 23.
Anticipation is only established when a single prior art
reference discloses every limitation of the claimed invention,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007