Appeal No. 2003-0726
Application No. 09/456,076
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1, the final Office
action, and Answer for the respective details.
OPINION
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 Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Rosenzweig reference does not fully meet the invention
as set forth in claims 1-29. Accordingly, we reverse.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
1 The Appeal Brief was filed July 18, 2002 (Paper No. 9). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated August 14, 2002 (Paper No. 10), a Reply Brief
was filed October 22, 2002 (Paper No. 12), which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated October 30, 2002
(Paper No. 13).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007