Appeal No. 1997-0706
Application No. 08/040,528
Advisory action mailed October 14, 1999 (Paper No. 28) for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejection. We have likewise reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the
Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer and in the
attachment to the Advisory action of October 14, 1999.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Chuang does not fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 19.
Accordingly, we reverse.
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007