Appeal No. 2004-1442 Page 4
Application No. 09/308,548
(Paper No. 18, mailed January 13, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 17, filed September 26, 2002) and
reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed March 17, 2003) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants 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 28 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hlavacek.
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
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007