Appeal 2007-1480
Application 10/667,078
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Endo in view
of Miyakawa.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we refer to
the Examiner's Answer (mailed Nov. 22, 2006) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Mar. 13, 2006) and Reply
Brief (filed Jan. 9, 2007) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In deciding 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 affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the
reasons follow.
ANTICIPATION
“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. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a
claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a
determination of the scope of the claim. We determine the scope of the
claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language,
but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013