Appeal No. 2006-1435 Page 3
Application No. 10/352,299
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon supports the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20 and 24-32, but does not support the
examiner’s rejection of claims 21-23, 33 and 34. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 13-
18, 20-22 and 24-33 as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Philyaw. Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007