Ex parte DONALD E. WEDER - Page 3




          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