Appeal No. 2006-0360
Application No. 10/388,691
The examiner relies on the following references:
Garfinkle 5,400,402 Mar. 21, 1995
Russo 5,619,247 Apr. 08, 1997
(filed Feb. 24, 1995)
Claims 25-27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Garfinkle.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Garfinkle in view of Russo.
Reference is made to the supplemental brief and the answer for
the respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under Section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the
invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007