Appeal No. 96-4204
Application 08/148,307
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that Albert does not fully meet the invention as recited in
claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, 17 and 18. We are also of the view that
the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular
art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 5, 6, 12,
13, 15, 16, 19 and 20. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-11, 14,
17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Albert. 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 Sys., 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007