Appeal No. 2004-0530
Application No. 09/696,557
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Appellants’ admitted prior art represented by Figure 1 and the discussion
thereof appearing in the specification, pages 5 to 7; and claims 7, 9, 17 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Dee and Appellants’ admitted
prior art represented by Figure 1 and the discussion thereof appearing in the specification,
pages 5 to 7. (Answer, pp. 4-6).
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and the
Examiner, we find that the Examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. Consequently, we will not affirm the
rejection of the claims under §§ 102 and 103. Rather than reiterate the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and Appellants concerning the above-noted
rejections, we refer to the Answer and the Briefs. We will limit our discussion to claims
1, 10 and 15 which are the independent claims.
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, all of the
elements of the claim must be found in one reference. Scripps Clinic & Research Found.
v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007