Appeal No. 1998-2556
Application 08/571,044
offered no argument in rebuttal of the rejection, we sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 11 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
We next consider the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
8, 10, 12, 14 and 15 as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Grotz. These claims stand or fall together as a single group.
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 representative, independent claim 1,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007