Appeal No. 96-1462
Application 08/025,189
invention as recited in claims 1-3, 10, 17-20 and 22. We are
also of the view that the collective evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention
as set forth in claims 1-47. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 10, 17-20
and 22 as anticipated by the disclosure of Mercedes-Benz. All of
these claims except claim 22 stand or fall together [brief, page
5]. 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.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue
that (1) the examiner has improperly treated the LCD device 19 of
Mercedes-Benz as both a projector as well as a cover, (2) the
examiner has not given the claimed projector the appropriate
meaning as set forth in this application, (3) Mercedes-Benz does
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007