Appeal No. 2006-2461
Application No. 09/991,020
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
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, the 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
disclosure of Akasheh fully meets the invention as set forth in claims 1-19 and
21-24. We further conclude that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claim 20. Accordingly, we affirm.
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
1 An appeal brief was initially filed on Apr. 25, 2005. In response to a Notice of Non-Compliant
Appeal Brief, appellant filed a corrected appeal brief on Jul. 15, 2005. An examiner’s answer was
then filed on Sept. 29, 2005, and a reply brief was filed on Dec. 1, 2005. The Board, however,
returned the case to the examiner on Apr. 11, 2006 for consideration of an Information Disclosure
Statement and revision of the answer to correct certain formalities. In response, the examiner
submitted a revised examiner’s answer on Apr. 19, 2006. Appellant then filed a supplemental
reply brief on Jun. 13, 2006. Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the corrected appeal brief
filed Jul. 15, 2005 (hereafter “brief”), (2) the revised examiner’s answer filed Apr. 19, 2006
(hereafter “answer”), and (3) the supplemental reply brief filed Jun. 13, 2006 (hereafter “reply
brief”).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007