Appeal No. 2004-1009
Application No. 09/785,382 Page 3
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Vallis in view of Barr and Sampson. Claim 15 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Vallis in view of Braulke. Claim 17 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallis in view of
Barr, Sampson and Braulke. Claims 8-10 and 12-14 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallis.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Claims 1 and 3-5
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), anticipation requires that the
prior art reference disclose, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, every limitation of the claim. See In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007