Appeal No. 2006-2981
Application No. 10/099,342
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 16, 17, 21, 23, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ponert (WO 00/05686).1
2. Claims 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ponert in view of Hsu.
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
disclosure of Ponert fully meets the invention set forth in claims 21, 23, 26, and
27. We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with respect to claims 16 and
1 Although appellant indicates that the examiner’s rejection is based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) citing
U.S. Pat. 6,431,455 to Ponert [brief, page 5], the rejection is actually based on 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and relies on WO 00/05686 (the equivalent document to the ‘455 U.S. patent) [answer,
page 3]. Although the equivalent U.S. ‘455 patent qualifies as prior art under § 102(e), the
examiner cited the ‘455 patent merely as an English language translation of the equivalent WO
document [id.]. Since appellant has not disputed the correspondence between the cited WO and
US documents, we presume that the U.S. ‘455 patent is the English language equivalent of WO
00/05686. Accordingly, we refer to the U.S. ‘455 patent throughout this opinion.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007