Appeal No. 1997-0258
Application No. 08/251,052
with regard to the issue of indefiniteness, our independent
review of the language of claim 12 reveals no ambiguity or
lack of clarity in the claim recitations. It is our view that
the skilled artisan, having considered the specification in
its entirety, would have no difficulty ascertaining the scope
of the invention recited in dependent claim 12. Therefore,
the rejection of claim 12 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1 and 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hsieh. Anticipation 3
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. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
3The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 7 was
set forth as a new ground of rejection in the Examiner’s
Answer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007