Appeal No. 2003-1598
Application 09/213,851
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Dillon 6,067,561 May 23, 2000
(filed Feb. 7, 1997)
Claims 1-104 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Dillon.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
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, the appellants’
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 disclosure of Dillon does not fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 1-104. Accordingly, we reverse.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007