Appeal No. 2004-1339 Page 3 Application No. 09/488,079 reply brief (Paper No. 37, filed March 16, 2004) 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 reference, 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 will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 to 12, 15 to 19, 22 and 24 to 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dlugos. 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 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007