Appeal No. 2006-3352
Application No. 09/682,520
Wisor.
Claims 4-12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Wisor in view of Ayers.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellant’s briefs, and to the
Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, for the
reasons stated infra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 as specified above.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1, 13 and 14 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
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.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on October 7, 2005 and a reply brief on July 3, 2006. The Examiner
mailed an Examiner’s Answer on April 28, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007