Appeal No. 95-5027
Application 08/993,198
therefore agree with the examiner that claim 5 does not
further limit the structure recited in claim 1, and we will
sustain the rejection of claim 5 and claims 6, 9 and 12, which
depend therefrom, on this ground.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 14 and 20 stand rejected as being anticipated by
Kao. Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub
nom., Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). A
reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed
invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings
in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art
and be in possession
of the invention. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007