Appeal No. 2006-2981
Application No. 10/099,342
17. We also 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 22, 24, and 25. Accordingly,
we affirm-in-part.
We first consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 17, 21, 23, 26, and
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ponert.2 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 recited functional
limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Only
those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be
fully met by the disclosure of Ponert [answer, page 3]. Regarding independent
claim 21, appellant argues that Ponert does not teach nor suggest a security
device including a processor that expunges security information from data
2 Although the examiner includes claims 18-20 in the statement of the rejection on page 3 of the
answer, claims 18-20 have been cancelled [see brief, page 1]. In addition, the examiner’s
reference to allowed claims 2 and 12 and cancelled claim 3 in the rejection text on page 3 of the
answer is presumed to be an inadvertent typographical error.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007