Appeal No. 96-2817
Application 08/082,549
filed November 9, 1995) and the reply brief (Paper No. 11,
filed February 28, 1996).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation and
obviousness issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully
considered appellant's specification and claims, the applied
references, and the respective viewpoints advanced by appellant
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made
the determination that the examiner's rejections of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103 cannot be sustained.
Our reasoning for such determinations follows.
In addressing the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), we note that it is well settled that an anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. See
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007