Appeal No. 2006-2918
Application 09/844,919
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by the disclosure of Allport. Claims 9, 11, 13, and
18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness
the examiner offers Allport along with the taking of Official Notice.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs 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
evidence relied upon supports each of the examiner’s rejections of the claims
on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 14-17 as being
anticipated by Allport. 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 Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007