Appeal No. 2006-1550
Application No. 10/044,401
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration Appellant’s
arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in the rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
After full consideration of the record before us, we agree with the Examiner that
claims 1, 3, 6 through 8 and 11 through 13 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Yokoyama. We also agree with the Examiner that claims 16 and 17
are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination
of Yokoyama and Lach. We further agree with the Examiner that claims 2 and 14 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Yokoyama and the Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art. Furthermore, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 4 is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Yokoyama and Tauchen. Additionally, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 5 is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Yokoyama and Aimoto. Last, we agree with the Examiner that
claim 10 is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Yokoyama and Hsieh. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 14, 16 and 17 for the reasons set forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), is the Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 6-8 and 11-13 as
Being Anticipated By Yokoyama Proper?
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior art
reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007