Appeal No. 2006-3019
Application No. 09/735,586
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims stand or fall together. (Brief, Page
11).
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Smith is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Smith fully meets the
invention as recited in claims 1-7, 9 and 25-32.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.
The primary reference cited by the Examiner for
establishing the teachings of the prior art at the time
of invention was the Smith reference, filed on December
7, 1994 and issued on July 2, 1996. The Appellant does
not address Examiner’s application of the Smith
reference to the claim limitations, but instead asserts
that the Smith reference is not available as prior art
in this application in view of an Applicant’s
Declaration pursuant to 37 CFR § 131, which endeavors
to establish Applicant’s conception of the invention
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013