Appeal No. 2004-2368
Application No. 09/395,854 Page 3
of the rejection, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 11, filed
January 23, 2004) for appellants' arguments thereagainst. Only
those arguments actually made by appellants have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered.
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.
We turn to claim 15, the sole claim before us for decision
on appeal. 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)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007