Appeal 2006-3430
Application 10/178,439
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims.
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
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).
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” Our reviewing court further states,
“[t]he terms used in the claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean
what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to
those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys. Inc v.
Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir.
2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1058 (2003).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3-5, 8-10,
and 13-39 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) as indicated above.
Reviewing the recited findings of facts, we find that the Examiner has
established and defended the prima facie case for anticipation and
obviousness under the law, and that the references contain sufficient
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013