Appeal 2007-0245
Application 10/238,126
Claims 17-191 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ayer, as applied to claim 1, in view of King.
Claims 11 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ayer, as applied to claim 1, in view of Gabbe.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Mar. 13, 2006) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Dec.
27, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed Apr. 10, 2006) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
1 At the outset, we note that the Examiner indicated the claims 7-9 and
15-20 are objected to and then the Examiner rejected claims 16-19. We find
that the Examiner intended to reject those claims and made a typographical
error in using a dash rather than using “and.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013