Appeal No. 2005-0993 Page 3
Application No. 10/056,156
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (mailed April 14, 2003), the answer (mailed October 31, 2003) and the
supplemental answer (mailed August 12, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed September 8, 2003) and the reply
briefs (filed December 1, 2003 and August 30, 2004) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, 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 based on Blatter
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Blatter.
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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007