Appeal No. 2006-1836
Application No. 10/087,556
We do not find persuasive of non-anticipation, appellants’ observation that Kanda
represents the prior art as described in appellants’ specification and that “it is this problem of
non-uniformity and the benefits derived from the subject solution to this problem which is the
issue in this appeal” (reply brief-page 1). Every element of the claimed structure is met by the
structure described by Kanda, in both form and function. Accordingly, claim 1 is anticipated by
Kanda.
Appellants do not separately argue the features of the other claims. Accordingly, claims
2-6 and 9-22 fall with claim 1.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007