Ex Parte DELEEUW - Page 5



          Appeal No. 2005-0062                                                        
          Application 09/222,906                                                      
                    Claim 1 as a representative claim of Group I (as                  
                    above); and                                                       
                    Claim 6 as a representative claim of Group II (claims             
                    6-7 and 13-14); and                                               
                    Claim 15 as a representative claim of Group III (claims           
                    15-17).                                                           
          If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is free            
          to select a single claim from each group and to decide the appeal           
          of that rejection based solely on the selected representative               
          claim.  In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465           
          (Fed. Cir. 2002).  See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69            
          USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                         

               I.   Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 18-19              
          Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?                                            
               It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,           
          that the disclosure of Yokomizo does fully meet the invention as            
          recited in claims 1-5, 8-12, and 18-19.  Accordingly, we affirm.            
               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,           
          138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.                  
          American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,            
          485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007