Appeal No. 2001-0605
Application No. 08/811,827
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, Appellant’s arguments set
forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support
of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Omoto reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 12, but we reach the opposite
conclusion in regard to Omoto with respect to claims 9-11. We are
also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 3 and 8. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 9-12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Omoto.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007