Appeal No. 2006-1797
Application No. 09/866,319
in the Examiner’s Answer.
After full consideration of the record before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 23-25,
28, 30, 32, 34-36, 39-41, 43 and 45 are properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Marty. We also agree
with the Examiner that claims 2, 3, 14, 22, 26, 27 and 33 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Marty. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that claims
5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 29, 31, 37, 38, 42 and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marty in combination
with Wen, Ohmi, Rodgers, Akatsu, Sato, Ju, Botula or Trivedi.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2
through 45 for the reasons set forth infra.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this appeal
the claims stand or fall together in nine (9) groups. See pages
6-7 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 45 as being representative of the claimed
invention.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), is the Rejection of Claims 4, 6,
8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 23-25, 28, 30, 32, 34-36, 39-41, 43
and 45 as Being Anticipated By Marty Proper?
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007