Appeal 2006-3143
Application 09/897,383
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. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Guedalia fully meets the invention as set forth in claims
25-29, 33-38, and 41. We further conclude 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 30-32, 39, and 40. Accordingly, we affirm.
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25-29, 33-38, and
41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Guedalia. 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013