Appeal No. 2003-0785
Application 09/457,816
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness the examiner offers Boutaghou in view of Lambert.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of 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, the
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 evidence relied upon supports the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. We reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claims 2-12 and 15. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Boutaghou.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007