Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
We consider first the rejection of independent claims
1, 9, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by the disclosures of Nimura ’696 or Nimura ’751.
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 supports this rejection by attempting to
read exemplary claim 1 on each Nimura reference [answer, page
3].
Appellants argue that neither Nimura reference discloses the
claimed means for providing driver instruction timing
preferences and the means for determining a degree of
conformance [brief, pages 4-8]. The examiner points to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007