Appeal No. 2003-1053
Application No. 09/306,960
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is as follows:
Su 5,781,880 Jul. 14, 1998
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Su.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Apr. 9, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed Feb. 12, 2002) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
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. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no difference
between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007