Appeal No. 2004-1981 Page 3
Application No. 09/404,692
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR 41.37(c).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse,
essentially for the reasons set forth by appellants. We begin
with claim 1.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As stated in In re Oelrich, 666
F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v.
Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939))
(internal citations omitted):
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007