Appeal No. 2006-2752
Application No. 10/309,007
After full consideration of the record before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claim 1 is properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Buening. We also agree
with the Examiner that claims 2 and 3 are properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buening. We further
agree with the Examiner that claim 4 is properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Buening and Ishida. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner
that claims 1 through 4 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Silvertown
and Ishida. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1 through 4 for the reasons provided in the Examiner’s
Answer, as further expanded upon in this opinion, and for the
reasons set forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), is the Rejection of claim 1 as
Being Anticipated By Buening Proper?
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be
found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of
the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007