Appeal No. 2003-1085
Application No. 09/190,670
For Suzuki to anticipate the method claimed in the
appellants’ claim 4, it is only necessary for the disclosure of
one mode to set forth the claim requirement relied upon by the
appellants. As discussed above, that claim requirement is met by
Suzuki’s direct mode disclosure (col. 38, lines 9-12).
Accordingly, we find that Suzuki anticipates the method
claimed in the appellants’ claim 4. We therefore affirm the
rejection of that claim and claims 6-10 that stand or fall
therewith.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Suzuki in view of Yamashita, and claims 4 and 6-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Suzuki, are affirmed.
AFFIRMED
)
Terry J. Owens )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Anita Pellman Gross )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Lance Leonard Barry )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO/eld
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007