Appeal No. 2004-0478
Application No. 09/768,976
If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is free
to select a single claim from each group and to decide the appeal
of that rejection based solely on the selected representative
claim. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465
(Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368,
69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 12-18
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Arya does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 12-18. Accordingly, we
affirm.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue at
page 7 of the brief, that the Examiner's assertion that Arya
et al. shows stiction "is clearly erroneous" and that "Table 1
says nothing about stiction." We agree. However, Appellants'
argument alone is not sufficient to overcome the Examiner's prima
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007