Appeal 2007-0471
Application 10/423,307
1 Claims 8, 9, 18, 19, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
2 as being obvious over the combination of Gifford and Clifton-Bligh.
3 Claims 10, 20, and 30 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
4 being obvious over the combination of Gifford and Clifton-Bligh.
5 Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellant’s briefs,
6 and to the Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.2
7 OPINION
8 With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal,
9 the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the Appellant and the
10 Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
11 claims 1-6, 11-16, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we affirm the
12 Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 7, 10, 17, 20, 27, and
13 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
14 8, 9, 18, 19, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
15 I. Whether Appellant has established the Examiner erred in rejecting
16 claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
17 It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
18 disclosure of Gifford does fully meet the invention as recited in claim 5.
19 Accordingly, we affirm.
20 It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
21 only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
22 King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
23 Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
24 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
2 Appellant filed an Appeal Brief on May 30, 2006. Appellant filed a Reply
Brief on August 22, 2006. The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on
July 17, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013