Appeal 2007-2437
Application 09/816,080
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated
by Mayers.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Nov. 9, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Jun. 19, 2006) for
the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
reference, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013