Appeal No. 2005-1843 Page 3
Application No. 09/585,222
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and the answer (mailed January 28, 2005) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed October 1, 2004) and reply
brief (filed March 28, 2005) 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 7
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Matousek.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007