Appeal No. 2002-2334
Application 09/097,235
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, Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Koolen fully meets the invention as
recited in claims 12-15, 18, 20, 22-27, 30, and 34. We are also
of the view that the Stein reference fully meets the invention
as set forth in claims 12-15, 18-20, 22-27, 30, and 34. In
addition, we are of the opinion that the evidence relied upon and
the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention
set forth in claims 16, 17, 19, 21, 28, and 29. Accordingly, we
affirm.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 12-15, 18, 20, 22-27, 30, and 34 based on
Koolen. At the outset, we note that anticipation is established
only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007