Appeal 2007-0338
Application 09/870,223
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Osder fully meets the invention as set forth in claims 1, 2, 9,
and 10. We also conclude 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 3-8 and 11-16.
Accordingly, we affirm.
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Osder. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore
and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Osder (Answer 13-15). Regarding
independent claim 1, Appellant argues, among other things, that Osder does
not teach a database containing plural pre-recorded voice prompts as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013