Appeal 2007-1671
Application 10/374,837
may find in the prior art a feature which is capable of performing a function recited
in the claims. “The Board's finding that the scaled-up version of figure 5 of Harz
would be capable of performing all of the functions recited in Schreiber's claim 1 is
a factual finding, which …[otherwise] …must be shown to be clearly erroneous…”
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1479, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1973).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude:
1. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-10 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
2. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Oros.
3. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Liu.
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013