Appeal No. 2005-1147 3
Application No. 09/834,440
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon supports each of the examiner’s
rejections. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12,
14 and 16-18 as being anticipated by the disclosure of Mills.
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 as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007