Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Ikeuchi does not fully meet
the invention as recited in claim 9. We are also of the view
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 6-8. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claim 9 as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Ikeuchi. 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.,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007