Appeal No. 2005-0005
Application No. 10/156,568
Hansell, III et al. (Hansell) 5,176,538 Jan. 5, 1993
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Hansell.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (mailed Feb. 26, 2004 ) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection,
and to appellant's brief (filed Dec. 18, 2003) and reply brief (filed Apr. 26, 2004) for
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
An anticipating reference must describe the patented subject matter with
sufficient clarity and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art and
that such existence would be recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the field of the
invention. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007