Appeal No. 2005-2289 Page 3
Application No. 10/064,508
rejections, and to the brief (filed September 13, 2004) and reply brief (filed April 1, 2005)
for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7 to 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Toukura. Likewise, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 5, 7 to 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Muto.
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation
resides with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 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, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007