Ex Parte Ker et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-1095                                                                              
                Application 09/944,171                                                                        
                      Claims 5-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being                         
                unpatentable over Jun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of                     
                Watt.                                                                                         

                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the                          
                Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make                     
                reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Mar. 22, 2006) for the                             
                reasoning in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed Jan. 4,               
                2006) and Reply Brief (filed Apr. 21, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.                   
                                                 OPINION                                                      
                      In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful                          
                consideration to Appellants’ Specification and claims, to the applied prior art               
                references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants 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               
                art reference.  Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2                   
                USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  The inquiry as to whether a reference                    
                anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the                   
                claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.  As set forth by                 
                the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ                      
                781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’                  

                                                      3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013