Appeal No. 96-3056
Application No. 08/173,287
[brief, page 3]. Consistent with this indication appellant
has made no separate arguments with respect to any of the
claims within each group. Although the examiner asserts that
appellant’s arguments are not sufficient to warrant separate
patentability of the groups, we find appellant’s arguments on
pages 8-10 of the brief to
adequately support the request to have the groups of claims
considered separately for patentability within the
requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192.
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).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 8, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007