Appeal No. 2005-1017 Page 3
Application No. 09/824,167
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 30, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed June 11, 2003) and reply brief (filed October 3, 2003)
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.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 6, 8 to 17 and 19 to 38
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Reineke. We initially note that 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
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007