Appeal No. 2005-2353 Page 3
Application No. 10/028,860
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 January 26, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed August 16, 2004) 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, 2, 6, 7, 12 to 16 and 27 to 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fujisaki.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that each and every element as set
forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference. If the prior art reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of
the claim, that reference still may anticipate if that element is "inherent" in its disclosure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007