Appeal No. 96-3949
Application No. 08/230,383
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that Okude does not fully meet the invention as set forth
in claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 15. We are also of the view that the
evidence relied upon would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 3-6, 10-14, and 16-24. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9, and
15 as being anticipated by the disclosure of Okude.
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).
The Examiner supports this rejection by attempting to
read the claims on the placement optimization system of Okude.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007