Appeal No. 96-1997
Application No. 08/176,614
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Clement.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the above
rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner
and the appellant, we refer to pages 3 and 4 of the examiner's
answer, to pages 2 through 7 of the appellant's brief and to the
appellant's reply brief for the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claim, to
the applied prior art, and to the respective positions advanced
by the appellant and by the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the
evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence
adduced by the examiner is insufficient to establish an
anticipation of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Our reasoning
for this determination follows.
We initially observe that an anticipation under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. See Constant v.
Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057,
1064 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988); RCA Corp. v.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007