Appeal No. 2006-2050
Application No. 10/045,913
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, reference is
made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon
by the Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs
along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the Shiozawa
reference does not fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 15, 19, 23-
27, 29, and 32-34. With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, we are
also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art
would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention as recited in
claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 16-18, 20-22, 28, 30, 31, and 38-42. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 15, 19, 23-27, 29, and 32-34
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Shiozawa. Anticipation is established
only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure
which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
1 The Appeal Brief (Supplemental) was filed May 3, 2004. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 28, 2004, a Reply Brief was filed October 1, 2004 which
was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication
mailed December 21, 2004.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007