Appeal No. 2006-0829
Application No. 09/921,024
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, reference is
made to the Briefs2 and Answer for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the Examiner
as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration,
in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the
Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the Curtis reference fully
meets the invention as set forth in claims 3 and 4. Accordingly, we affirm.
We note that 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 Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007