Appeal No. 2005-1727
Application No. 09/925,013
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Stief.
Claims 19-22, 27-30, 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stief in view of Smith.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
April 5, 2004 and September 22, 2004) and answer (mailed July 19,
2004) for the respective positions of the appellants and examiner
regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-15, 17 and 18
as being anticipated by Stief
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no difference
between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as
viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007