Appeal No. 2006-0010 Page 4
Application No. 10/170,538
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(mailed February 23, 2005) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the Brief (filed December 27, 2004) and the Reply Brief (filed April 25, 2005) for
the Appellants= arguments there against.
We reverse the ' 102 rejections of claims 65, 67 and 68. We reverse the ' 103
rejection over Sang and the ' 103 rejection of claims 33-36, 59 and 63 over Jin >358.
We affirm the ' 102 rejections of claims 64 and 66. We also affirm the ' 103 rejection
of claims 21-32, 37, 39-58 and 60-62 over Jin >358. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
Rejections under ' 102
The Examiner has rejected claims 64-68 under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as anticipated
by the Kenny, Jin >324 and Jin >358 references. We reverse the ' 102 rejections of
claims 65, 67 and 68. We affirm the ' 102 rejections of claims 64 and 66.
The Examiner's position is that Kenny, Jin >324 and Jin >358 each anticipates
the subject matter of claims 64 to 68. (Answer, pp. 3-4). ATo anticipate a claim, a prior
art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently.@ In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007