Appeal No. 1997-0509
Application 08/314,131
543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461,
230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are also mindful, however,
that anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under the principles of inherency, each and every element
of a claimed invention. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). Furthermore, only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
making this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been
considered [37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Rejection of claims 5 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
These claims are rejected as being anticipated by
Toyokura. We first take independent claim 5. We have
evaluated the positions of the Examiner [final rejection,
pages 3 to 4 and answer, pages 2 to 3] and Appellant [brief,
pages 8 to 13 and reply brief, pages 2 to 5]. We agree with
the Examiner that Toyokura does anticipate the invention as
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007