Appeal No. 2005-0510
Application No. 09/883,435
In view of the claim construction and analysis as discussed
above, we determine that every limitation recited in claim 1 on
appeal is described by the disclosure of Kim. A description of
every claimed limitation by one reference constitutes anticipation
of the claimed subject matter. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Since anticipation or
lack of novelty is the epitome or ultimate of obviousness, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 on appeal under section
103(a) for obviousness over Kim. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d
792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982). Since claims 2-3, 6, 8-
10, 12-24, 30-34 and 54 have not been separately argued by
appellants, these claims fall with claim 1 for reasons discussed
above. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003); In re McDaniel, supra.
With regard to claims 7 and 53, appellants argue that Kim does
not suggest the parallelogram or rectangle configurations required
by these claims (Brief, pages 12-13). Appellants further argue the
honeycomb arrangement of prisms as recited in claim 35 is not
suggested by the circular arrangement taught by Kim (Brief, page
13). These arguments are not persuasive since, as noted by the
examiner (Answer, pages 3-5), Kim suggests changing the geometry of
the units (Kim, col. 6, ll. 8-24). Accordingly, we agree with the
examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007