Appeal No. 2006-1204
Application No. 10/379,006
reviewed and taken into consideration Appellants’ arguments set
forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in support
of the rejections and arguments in the rebuttal set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer. After full consideration of the record before
us, we agree with Appellants that claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, 13, 14,
22, 24, 25, 50 and 55 are not properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102 as being anticipated by Mooney et al. We further agree with
Appellants that claims 40 and 45 are not properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney et al.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2,
5, 9-11, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 40, 45, 50 and 55 for the reasons
set forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), is the Rejection of Claims 1, 2,
5, 9-11, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 50 and 55 as Being Anticipated By
Mooney et al. Proper?
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007