Appeal No. 2005-2615 2
Application No. 09/908,405
The prior art
The prior art reference relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is:
Peckels 5,507,411 Apr. 16, 1996
The rejection
Claims 1 and 6 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Peckels.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final
rejection and the answer for the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejection and to the brief 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.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. As being anticipated by
Peckels. 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-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007