Appeal No. 1996-3287
Application 08/226,472
Nomura.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make reference to the briefs
and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced by the
examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejection. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of Nomura does
not fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 1-6. Accordingly, we reverse.
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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007