Appeal No. 2004-2155
Application No. 09/562,641 Page 4
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, appellants' arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections 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 the rejection of claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-29, 32 and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Rogers. We turn first
to 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007