Appeal 2007-2202
Application 10/608,169
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 3, 6 through 8, 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Huber. The Examiner’s rejection is set
forth on pages 3 through 5 of the Answer.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ueda. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 5 and 6 of the
Answer.
Claims 1, 3, 6 through 8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Eggleton. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 6
of the Answer.
Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huber and Koizumi. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on
page 7 of the Answer.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Huber and Schwindt. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 7 and 8
of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief (filed November
29, 2005), the Reply Brief (filed March 31, 2006) and the Answer (mailed June 26,
2006) for the respective details thereof.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013