Appeal No. 1998-2501
Application No. 08/534,149
Nevertheless, we will not sustain the rejection of claim
15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) in view of Kukreja because
anticipation requires a single prior art reference to
disclose, 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
Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Assoc. Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Instant claim 15 sets forth that the door engaging end
and the rear edge of the door interact to force the door open
when the tape cartridge is inserted into the tape drive “in a
direction transverse to the edge wall.” It is clear from
Figure 1 of Kukreja that the direction of insertion of the
cartridge into the tape drive is parallel, and not transverse
to, the edge wall of the cartridge in which the door, 26,
covering the opening of the cartridge is located. The
examiner contends that the opening 24 of Kukreja is defined by
many edge walls of which only two are not transverse to the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007