Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Usui fully meets the invention as
recited in claims 1, 2, 9 and 11. We are also of the view that
the collective 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 claims
3-8, 10, 14 and 15. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 9 and 11
as being anticipated by the disclosure of Usui. These claims
stand or fall together [brief, page 3], and we will consider
claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection.
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 indicated how she has read claim 1 on
the Usui disclosure [answer, page 4]. Appellants do not question
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007