Appeal No. 2000-0811
Application 08/964,734
Discussion
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9 and 12-16 is affirmed. The
rejection of claim 10 is reversed.
Our affirmance of a rejection is based only on the arguments
presented by the appellant in this appeal. Arguments not raised
are not before us, not at issue, and regarded as waived. A
reversal of any rejection on appeal should not be construed as a
ruling that the appellants’ claims are patentable over prior art.
We address only the positions and rationale set forth by the
examiner and on which the rejection on appeal is based.
The findings contained in our discussion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
A. The Anticipation Rejection
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. In
re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.Cir. 1984). See also In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.,
730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007