Missing element leads to reversal in Salopuro
Because Appellants have shown at least one error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’
remaining arguments. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
as being anticipated by Sakamoto.
Because claims 2-29 recite the disputed limitations discussed above
and the additional citations relied upon by the Examiner do not cure the
noted deficiencies, we similarly find error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2-29 for the foregoing reasons.