Appeal No. 2006-1726
Application No. 09/725,849
that claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 are not properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Takahashi and Miwa. Additionally, we agree with Appellants that
claim 18 is not properly rejected as being unpatentable over the
combination of Takahashi and Kubota. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8, 11-14, 16 and 18 for the
reasons set forth infra.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this appeal
the claims stand or fall together in eight groups. See page 4 of
the Appeal Brief. However, the reasons set forth infra are
applicable to all the claims. Therefore, we will consider
Appellants’ claims as standing or falling together, and we will
consider claim 1 as being representative of the claimed
invention.
I. Under 35 USC 102(e), is the Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, 8,
11-14 and 16 as Being Anticipated By Takahashi 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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007