Appeal 2007-1571
Application 10/198,335
claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 17, 21, 22 and 26-38, and adds Van Oostenbrugge to the
basic combination with respect to claims 5, 12, 19, 24, and 25.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants 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)].
ISSUES
(i) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(e), does Prichard have a disclosure which
anticipates the invention set forth in claims 10, 13-16, 18, 20, and 23?
(ii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1-4,
6-9, 11, 17, 21, 22 and 26-38, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention have found it obvious to combine Prichard with Allor
to render the claimed invention unpatentable?
(iii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 5, 12,
19, 24, and 25 would the ordinarily skilled artisan have found it obvious to
modify the combination of Prichard and Allor by adding Van Oostenbrugge
to render the claimed invention unpatentable?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. ANTICIPATION
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found if
the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013