Claims 1-7
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by [PA]. This rejection is respectfully traversed for the following reasons.
With respect to the Examiner's rejection, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection on the basis that [PA] does not include all limitations as claimed.
/* Authority starts*/
MPEP § 2131 states that “‘[a] claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently [See related post] 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)” (emphasis added). “‘The
identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim.’ Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F .2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d
1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989)” (emphasis added). Moreover, “[e]very element of
the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.” Id.
/* Authority ends*/
Therefore, to properly reject claims 1-7 under U.S.C. §102, the disclosure of [PA] must include each and every element and limitation as arranged therein.
Referring to the specification for the purposes of illustration only, embodiments of
the claimed invention relate to ". . . " See paragraphs [00**]-[00**] of the originally published specification.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 requires, in part, ". . . "
Meanwhile, [PA] discloses, in part, ". . . " See paragraph [0083] of [PA].
Applicant respectfully asserts that [PA] fails to disclose all of the limitations of
independent claim 1. Specifically, independent claim 1 requires, in part, ". . . " [PA], however, is directed toward . . . [PA] is silent with regard to . . . , as claimed, and is instead concerned with . . . ..
In view of the above, as [PA] fails to anticipate at least the aforementioned
limitation as required by independent claim 1, a rejection under § 102 cannot be supported. Thus,
independent claim 1 is patentable over [PA]. Independent claim 7 contains substantially similar
limitations and therefore is also patentable over [PA] for at least the same reasons. Dependent
claims are allowable for at least the same reasons. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is
respectfully requested.
Conclusion
Applicant believes this reply is fully responsive to all outstanding issues and places this application in condition for allowance. If this belief is incorrect, or other issues arise, the Examiner is encouraged to contact the undersigned or his associates at the telephone number listed
below.
