Appeal No. 2006-2103
Application No. 09/780,817
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, reference is made
to the Briefs1 and Answer for their respective details.
OPINION
We have fully 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, Appellant’s 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 Fisher reference
does not fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-25. 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 obviousness of the invention as recited in claims 8, 9, 17, 18, 26,
and 27. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Fisher. Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
1 The Appeal Brief was filed September 15, 2005, 2005. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed December 12, 2005, a Reply Brief was filed February 13, 2006,
which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication
mailed May 2, 2006.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007