Appeal No. 2004-1016
Application No. 10/174,567
the combined disclosures of Dunlap and Allred.1 Claims 8 through
15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Dunlap, Allred and Inagawa.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification,
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in support of
their respective positions. This review has led us to conclude
that only the examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 7, 8, 12 and 15
are not well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 9 through 11, 13 and 14
for the factual findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
ANTICIPATION
An anticipation under Section 102 is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1 The examiner inadvertently stated in the Answer that
claims 4 and 5 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Dunlap and Allred.
However, it is clear from the examiner’s final Office action
dated December 16, 2002 and the examiner’s Answer that this
rejection is actually directed to claims 4 and 7.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007