Appeal No. 1997-0367
Application No. 08/321,581
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 neither Ueda nor Miyazawa fully meets the invention
as set forth in claims 4-6 and 16-30. 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).
We initially note that the Examiner, despite asserting
the anticipatory nature of the disclosures of Ueda and
Miyazawa with respect to the appealed claims, has never
attempted to show how each of the claimed limitations is met
by the prior art. Instead, the Examiner has made a vague
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007