Appeal No. 2006-1145 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/143,977
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, appellant’s arguments set forth in the
brief along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we make the
determinations which follow. We begin with the rejection of
claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11, 16, 17, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Moses. We note at the outset
that appellant has argued the claims as a group. Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative of the group. By way of
background, it is well settled that if a prior art device inherently possesses the
capability of functioning in the manner claimed, anticipation exists whether there was a
recognition that it could be used to perform the claimed function. See, e.g., In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007