Ex Parte Jenks - Page 3




              Appeal No. 2003-2098                                                                  Page 3                
              Application No. 09/833,978                                                                                  


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                        
              the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer                         
              (Paper No. 14, mailed April 3, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support                       
              of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed March 18, 2003) for the                            
              appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                                                         


                                                       OPINION                                                            
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                      
              the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                   
              respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence                       
              of our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                     


              The anticipation rejection                                                                                  
                     We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                                
              anticipated by Freeman.                                                                                     


                     A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is                   
              found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.                           
              Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.                         
              Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).  The inquiry as to whether a reference                            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007