Appeal No. 2006–0377 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/066,085
(mailed May 9, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (filed January 31, 2005) and reply brief (filed July 11, 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.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Müller. We initially note that to support a rejection of a
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, 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-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781,
789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner's findings regarding this rejection can be found on pages 3 and 4
of the answer.
The appellant argues that Müller does not describe a saddle-shaped support
disposed above a conveying device. In appellant's view, the chain 2 of Muller, which
the examiner finds to be a saddle-shaped support, is disposed behind the chain 3,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007