Appeal 2006-2133
Application 10/679,144
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of the
rejections, 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, Appellants’ arguments set
forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejection 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 Basceri fully meets the invention as recited in claims 74-76,
80-85, 87-91, and 93-95, and Gilbert fully meets the invention as recited in
claims 74, 75, 80-82, 84, 85, 87-91, and 93. In addition, with respect to the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we are of the opinion 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 invention as set forth in the appealed
claims 76, 83, 86, 92 and 94-97. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claims 74-76, 80-85, 87-91, 93-95, and 97 based on Basceri. At the outset,
we note that it is well settled that anticipation is established only when a
1 The Appeal Brief was filed December 14, 2005. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed February 28, 2006, a Reply Brief was filed
March 24, 2006, which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as
indicated in the communication dated May 8, 2006.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013