Appeal No. 2002-2074
Application No. 09/494,965
Claims 1, 54, 62 and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garrett in view of Wood.
Claims 1, 17, 18, 20, 21, 33 through 35, 54, 55, 62 and 63
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wood in view of Sweeney.
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wood in view of Sweeney and O’Brien.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 11 and 14) and to the examiner’s final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 9 and 12) for the respective
positions of the appellants and examiner regarding the merits of
these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 54 and 55 as being
anticipated by Sweeney
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no
1 In the final rejection, claim 63 also stood rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sweeney. The examiner
has since withdrawn this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007