Appeal No. 2005-2054
Application No. 10/425,137
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Taheri in view of Dae, and claims 13 and 14 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Taheri.2
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer and
final Office action for an exposition of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning these
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of the
rejections advanced on this appeal.
The totality of the appellants’ argument concerning the
Section 102 rejection is expressed in the sentence appearing on
page 4 of the brief and reproduced below:
The fact that the inlet holes in Claim 13 are smaller than
the outlet hole is not addressed in the rejection and is not
shown in Taheri, rendering the rejection defective under
MPEP § 2131 (to support an anticipation rejection, every
claim element must be taught or inherent in a single prior
art reference).
2As indicated on page 3 of the brief, the appealed claims
have been grouped and argued in accordance with their grouping
in the above noted rejections. Stated otherwise, the dependent
claims on appeal have not been separately argued from their
parent independent claims. Therefore, in assessing the merits of
these rejections, we will focus on claims 5 and 13 which are the
sole independent claims before us.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007