Appeal No. 96-2278
Application 08/175,001
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 1-3, 5-8 and 10-15.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8 and
10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Axelrod. 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 & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220
USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
The examiner asserts that Axelrod’s Figure 1
illustrates all the components of the apparatus recited in
claims 1-12 as well as the method recited in claims 13-16
[final rejection, page 2]. With respect to independent claims
1 and 13, appellants argue that in Axelrod “there is nothing
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007