Appeal No. 2005-0661
Application No. 09/894,480
Ottesen et al. (Ottesen) 5,267,110 Nov. 30, 1993
Heath 6,205,005 Mar. 20, 2001
Rao 6,404,727 Jun. 11, 2002
Chin et al. (Chin) 6,424,503 Jul. 23, 2002
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Heath.
Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Heath in view of Rao and Puro.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heath in view of Ottesen.
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Heath in view of Chin.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 12 and 14) and answer (Paper No. 13) for the respective
positions of the appellants and examiner regarding the merits of
these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12,
13, 15, 17, 19 and 20
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007