Appeal No. 2006-3122
Application No. 10/247,769
4. Claims 26 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takatori in view of Kamada.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants 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 appellants'
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 Takatori fully meets the invention as set forth in claims 1-6, 14-17,
19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, and 31. We also find 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 obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 7-9, 18, 21,
22, 25, 26, and 29. Accordingly, we affirm.
We first consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 14-17, 19, 20, 23,
24, 27, 28, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being unpatentable over
Takatori. Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013