Appeal No. 2006-1676
Application No. 10/384,882
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
Examiner as evidence of anticipation:
Molina et al. (Molina) 6,281,393 Aug. 28, 2001
Brennan et al. (Brennan) 4,485,195 Nov. 27, 1984
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
unpatentable over Molina.1
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Brennan.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the Appellants and by the Examiner concerning this rejection, we
refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
respectively for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons provided below, neither of the § 102
rejections can be sustained.
During examination claim language is given its broadest
reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, a specification is
examined for whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
1 The examiner rejected claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), however, it
appears that the rejection should have been made under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The U.S. filing date for Appellants’ application is March 10, 2003 and the
publication date of the Molina patent is August 28, 2001, which is more than
one year before Appellants’ filing date.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007