Appeal No. 2006-2064
Application 09/771,761
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Curtis fully meets the invention as recited in claims 1, 8-13, 16,
18, 21, 22, 25, and 26. In addition, with respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection, we are of the opinion 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 set forth in the
appealed claims 2-7, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 27-31. Accordingly, we
affirm.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claims 1, 8-13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, and 26 based on Curtis. At the outset, we
note that it is well settled that 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.); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007