Appeal No. 2006-1475
Application No. 10/021,728
upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into 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 does not provide the necessary support for any of the examiner’s rejections.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-10, 17-21, 24-26, 31-35, 38, 39, 42-
50, 54 and 55 as being anticipated by the disclosure of Sojoodi. 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 Sojoodi [answer, pages 3-6]. With respect to claims 1-4, 10,
18-21, 26, 31 and 34, which are argued as a single group, appellants argue that the
examiner has mischaracterized the palettes shown in figure 7 of Sojoodi. Specifically,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007