Appeal 2007-0939
Application 10/931,274
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, and 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kojima.
2. Claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Kojima in
view of Anghel.
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
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon supports the Examiner’s rejection of
the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
STATEMENT OF LAW (§ 102)
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.,
976 F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Anticipation
of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013