Appeal 2007-1893
Application 10/946,753
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
I. The Anticipation Rejection Based on Shin
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9-16, 25-
37, and 39-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shin.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of
performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 15, and 16
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by Shin (Answer 3-12). Regarding representative claim 1,4
Appellants argue that Shin’s aperture 16 does not control the length or
4 Appellants argue claims 1, 5, 6, 15, and 16 together as a group. See Br. 7
and 11. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013