Appeal No. 2004-0918 Page 3
Application No. 09/715,547
Claims 24 to 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Benson.
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. 22, mailed November 25, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 21, filed October 6, 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 will not sustain the rejection of claims 24 to 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Siklos or Benson.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007