Appeal No. 2003-0319
Application No. 09/206,663 Page 3
of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 15, filed
June 28, 2002) for appellant’s arguments thereagainst. Only
those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which appellant 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 rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant's arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse,
essentially for the reasons set forth by appellant. We begin
with claim 1.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007