Appeal No. 96-4012
Application No. 08/197,908
support of the rejections 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 Galand fully meets the invention as
recited in claims 9-13 and 22-26. We are also of the view
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention set forth in
claims 9-13 and 22-26. We reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claims 1-8 and 14-21. Accordingly, we affirm-in-
part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 9-13 and 22-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Galand.
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 and Assoc, Inc. v.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007