Appeal No. 2003-0750
Application 09/310,650
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 Briefs 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 Nagao reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 56-71, 74-78, 80, 81, 88-94, 97, 109-111, 114,
117 and 118. With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection, 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 recited in claims 72, 73, 79, 82-87, 95, 96,
98-108, 112, 113, 115, 116. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 56-71, 74-78, 80,
81, 88-94, 97, 109-111, 114, 117 and 118 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Nagao. 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 structure which is capable of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007