Appeal No. 2005-1051 4
Application No. 09/788,147
Claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 13 through 15 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dyer in view of
Fuerst.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 15, 17 through 23 and 27 through 29
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pavone in view of Fuerst.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
Jan. 20, 2004 and April 2, 2004) and the answer (mailed Feb. 20,
2004) for the respective positions of the appellant and examiner
regarding the merits of these rejections.3
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8, 11,
13 through 15, 17, 22, 23 and 26 as being anticipated by Schenkel
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
3
3 In the final rejection, claims 1 through 15, 17 through 23
and 26 through 29 also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Upon reconsideration, the examiner has
withdrawn this rejection (see page 7 in the answer).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007