Appeal No. 2003-1726
Application No. 09/460,450
Since the remainder of the claim depends upon the
limitations already found lacking in Perlman, clearly those
limitations are likewise lacking. Since Perlman fails to
disclose each and every limitation of the claim, claim 22 is not
anticipated by Perlman. Furthermore, since independent claim 24
includes the same limitations found lacking and independent
claims 1 and 23 recite corresponding structure limitations for
those found lacking, none of the independent claims are
anticipated by Perlman. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 22 through 24, nor of their dependents,
claims 2 through 21.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007