Appeal No. 1999-0848
Application No. 08/634,310
the claims on appeal. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231
USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the Nakano and Maeda references do not fully meet the
limitations of representative claim 8, but that the Jang and May
references do anticipate the invention set forth in claim 8. We
are also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the level
of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
recited in the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
The Nakano Reference
We consider first the rejection of representative claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nakano.
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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007