Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
over Hermann in view of Kincaid. Claims 5-10 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hermann in view of Kincaid and
further in view of Iyoda.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the briefs2
and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellants and
Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims
3-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We first turn to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejections.
Anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) requires
that "each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949,
1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999) citing Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on September 3, 2002. We will
refer to this brief as the brief. Appellants filed a reply brief
on January 10, 2003. We will refer to Appellants' reply brief as
the reply brief. The Examiner mailed an Office communication on
April 8, 2003 stating that the reply brief has been entered.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007