Appeal No. 2004-1599
Application No. 09/784,466
REJECTION
Claims 1 through 7 and 15 through 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of U.S. Patent
5,180,038 issued to Arnold et al. on Jan 19, 1993 (hereinafter
referred to as “Arnold”).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both
the examiner and the appellant in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that only the
examiner’s Section 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 7, 15 and
17 through 21 is well founded. Accordingly, we only affirm the
examiner’s Section 102(b) rejection of such claims for essentially
those reasons set forth in the Answer and below.
For Arnold to anticipate the claimed subject matter, it must
disclose every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly
or inherently. See, e.g., Hazani v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 126 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997); RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007