Appeal No. 2006-0933
Application No. 09/740,400
aching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along with
the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the He reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 1-14, 20-33, and 39-52. With respect to the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, we are also of the view
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as recited in claims 15-19, 34-38, and 53-57.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-14, 20-33, and 39-
52 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by He.
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007