The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ALLEN JOHN WALENTY,
KEVIN GERARD LEPPEK and DAVID ALAN THATCHER
______________
Appeal No. 2004-1767
Application 09/976,887
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief and reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the ground of rejection of appealed claims
1 through 7,1 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Shimizu.2
It is well settled that in making out a prima facie case of anticipation, each and every
element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claims, must be found in a single
prior art reference, either expressly or under the principles of inherency. See generally,
1 See the appendix to the brief.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007