Appeal No. 96-3040
Application 08/135,650
Appellants have nominally indicated that the claims do not stand or fall together, but
they have not specifically argued the limitations of each of the claims. To the extent that
appellants have properly argued the reasons for independent patentability of specific
claims, we will consider such claims individually for patentability. To the extent that
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to some of the claims, such
claims will stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. 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).
For purposes of deciding this appeal, only those arguments actually made by
appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR §
1.192(a)].
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
& Assocs., 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 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007