Appeal No. 2005-1835 Page 3
Application No. 10/106,538
(mailed September 10, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed August 18, 2004) and reply brief (filed October 15,
2004) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 14, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007