Appeal No. 2005-0352 Page 3
Application No. 09/727,134
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed July 26, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed November 13, 2002) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wiegert.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007