Appeal No. 2004-2257
Application No. 09/841,486
3) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Suzuki, Arai
and Fujita.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s rejections are not well founded. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth
in the Brief, the Reply Brief and below.
SECTION 102 REJECTION
Under Section 102, anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference clearly and unequivocally discloses,
either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of the claimed subject matter without any need for
picking, choosing and combining various disclosures within the
reference. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88, 172 USPQ 524, 526
(CCPA 1972).
Here, as evidence of anticipation of the subject matter
defined by claims 1 through 6, 8, 9 and 13 through 19 under
Section 102(b), the examiner relies on the disclosure of Suzuki.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007