Appeal No. 2002-0822
Application No. 09/021,362
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15, 18-26, 28-35, 38-46, 48-55
and 58-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 16, 17, 36, 37, 56, 57, 65 and 66 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We first will address the rejection of claims 1-15, 18-26,
28-35, 38-46, 48-55 and 58-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.3d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation with respect to independent
claims 1, 21, 41 and 61. Appellant argues that Dunn fails to
teach determining whether a time period was reached. Appellant
further argues that Dunn fails to teach that if the time period
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007