Appeal No. 2006-1787
Application No. 09/746,361
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the Examiner’s
rejection, the arguments in support of the rejection and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief
along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection
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 through 21 are properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Gilby.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 21 for the reasons set forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), is the Rejection of claims 1
through 21 as Being Anticipated By Chan Gilby?
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.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to representative claim 1, Appellants argue in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007