Appeal No. 2005-2412
Application No. 10/018,818
Claims 1, 3-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by either Beall ‘510 or Beall ‘485.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Baur.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Ruiz.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beall ‘510 or Beall ‘485.
Finally, claims 6-9 also are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baur in view of Griffith.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
We cannot sustain any of the rejections advanced on this
appeal for the reasons set forth below.
In making a patentability determination, analysis must begin
with the question, “what is the invention claimed?” since
“[c]laim interpretation . . . will normally control the remainder
of the decisional process.” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007