Appeal No. 2006-2963
Application No. 10/309,969
2. Claims 2-7, 12-17, and 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Peters in view of de Boor.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants 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 Appellants' 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 disclosure of
Peters fully meets the invention as set forth in claims 1, 8-11, 18-21, and 28-30. Also,
we find that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 2-7, 12-17, and 22-27. Accordingly, we affirm.
We first consider the rejection of claims 1, 8-11, 18-21, and 28-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Peters. 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 functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied DigitaData Systems,Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 as
disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited (Fed. Cir. 1984);
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007