Appeal No. 94-3631
Application 07/883,513
disparate prior art concepts in Concannon and Chadwick, but the examiner has pointed to no
suggestion in the references themselves which would lead the artisan to make the proposed
modification.
Since we agree with appellants that there is no basis on this record to use the Chadwick
Lambertian illuminating source with the Concannon check processing system, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We now consider the rejection of claims 22-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Concannon. 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.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has made an effort to read these claims on the Concannon disclosure [answer,
pages 4-5]. Appellants respond that there are several elements of claims 22-33 which are not
present in Concannon despite the examiner’s attempt to assert that they are present in Concannon.
Of most concern to appellants is that Concannon has no source means comprising an integrated
vessel or housing as required by the claims, and that Concannon does not disclose that the inner
surfaces of this vessel or housing should be treated to project light beams which are highly-
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007