Appeal No. 2003-2065
Application 09/881,441
Throughout our opinion, we make reference to the briefs1 and
the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claim
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 10, 12 and 14 through 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention.” RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.) cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984),
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 30, 2002.
Appellants filed a reply brief on April 21, 2003. The Examiner
mailed an office communication stating that the reply brief has
been entered into the record on May 7, 2003. In response to an
order to correct the appendix, Appellants filed a supplemental
corrected appendix on July 7, 2003. The supplemental corrected
appendix provide the claims that are properly before us for our
consideration.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007