Appeal 2007-2463
Application 10/403,555
2. Claims 5, 8, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kojima and Zigler.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
I. The Anticipation Rejection
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kojima. 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).
Claims 1, 7, and 9
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Kojima. Regarding independent claim 1,
the Examiner contends that Kojima’s end plate 21 corresponds to the recited
“securing ring” and extends over the “bandage” (metal pipe 4). Such an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013