Appeal 2007-3382
Application 10/040,288
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flick ‘946 in view of
Saunders.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jun. 3, 2005) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Feb. 25, 2005)
and Reply Brief (filed Aug. 3, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
At the outset, we note that Appellant’s Brief is non-compliant in its
content under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v) for the Summary of the Invention.
Rather than remand the application at this late stage, we will decide the
appeal on its merits.
ANTICIPATION
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a
claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a
determination of the scope of the claim. We determine the scope of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013