Appeal No. 2005-0116
Application No. 10/109,390
Claims 1-2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Fossum. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fossum in view of Merrill. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Fossum in view of Gowda. Claims 6-9 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dhuse in view of Booth, Jr. Claim 10 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dhuse in view of Booth and
Merrill.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (mailed Apr. 21, 2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellants’ brief (filed Jan. 14, 2004) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Initially we note that anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either
the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or the recognition of inherent
properties that may be possessed by the prior art reference. See Verdegaal Bros. Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007