Appeal No. 2003-1176
Application No. 09/074,288
Takeuchi et al. 5,180,617 Jan. 19, 1993
(Takeuchi)
Claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 10 on appeal stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Rohrlach.
(Examiner’s answer mailed Jan. 27, 2003, paper 33, pages 3-4.)
In a similar fashion, claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 10 on
appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Takeuchi. (Id. at page 4.) Also, claims 1 through 4 and 6
through 10 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takeuchi. (Id. at page 5.)
We affirm all three rejections.2
Rohrlach
To aid us in determining whether the examiner applied the
prior art correctly against the appealed claims, we must first
consider the scope and meaning of certain terms that appear in
appealed claim 1. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457,
1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir.
1994). It is well settled that, in proceedings before the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), claims in an
2 The appellants submit that the appealed claims should be
grouped as follows: (I) claims 1 and 6; and (II) claims 2-4 and
7-10. (Appeal brief filed Nov. 15, 2002, paper 32.)
Accordingly, we select claim 1 from group I and claim 2 from
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007