Appeal 2006-3069
Application 10/661,273
do not agree with the Examiner that the claims are indefinite. Accordingly,
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 17-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
STATEMENT OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharm., 432
F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation
omitted). The absence of a disclosure relating to function does not defeat a
finding of anticipation if all the claimed structural limitations are found in
the reference. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
ANALYSIS
Issues 2 and 3
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-11,
14, 15, 17-19, and 22 as being anticipated by Kuroda and also the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-13, 15, and 17-21 as being
anticipated by Onda. Since Appellants’ arguments have treated these claims
as a single group which stand or fall together, we will select independent
claim 9 as the representative claim because we find it is the broadest claim
before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013