Appeal No. 2005-0208 Page 3
Application No. 10/137,510
The appellant's arguments regarding the above-noted rejections are set forth in
the brief (filed December 29, 2003) and reply brief (filed June 1, 2004). The examiner's
response to the appellant's arguments is set forth in the answer (mailed April 2, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied Moon patent, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007