Appeal No. 2004-1517
Application No. 09/765,172
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10-12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Brisebois.
Claims 7, 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Brisebois.
Claims 3, 4, 13-15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Brisebois in view of Goto.
Throughout our opinion, we will 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 Appellant
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
3, 4, 7, 9 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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,
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on September 8, 2003.
Appellant filed a reply brief on December 23, 2003. The Examiner
mailed out an Office communication on January 15, 2004 stating
that the reply brief has been entered into the record.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007