Appeal No. 2006-0996
Application No. 10/162,516
consideration, in reaching our decision, the 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 evidence relied
upon supports each of the examiner’s rejections. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 13, 27, 29, 38-41, 48 and 54 as
being anticipated by Lee. 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, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
851 (1984). The examiner has indicated how the invention of these claims is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Lee [final rejection, pages 2-6].
With respect to independent claims 1, 27, 38 and 48, which are argued as a single
group, appellants argue that the section of Lee cited by the examiner fails to support the
rejection because it does not disclose that the wavelengths are selected using the
model traces. Appellants assert that the cited section only teaches that wavelengths
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007