Appeal No. 95-3800
Application 08/046,109
anticipated nor rendered obvious by the teachings of Konopik.
We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the
disclosure and teachings of Albright. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a single
group [brief, page 4]. Consistent with this indication
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any
of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, all the claims before
us will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore, we will consider the rejection against independent
claim 13 as representative of all the claims on appeal.
We consider first the rejection of claims 13 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of
Konopik. 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,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007