Appeal No. 97-0655
Application 08/294,913
as recited in independent claim 13 would destroy the very
purpose for which Pease was designed as discussed above.
Therefore, we do not sustain this rejection of claims 13-17.
4. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Jamison.
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 indicates how he “reads” claim 1 on
Jamison on page 10 of the answer. Appellant argues that
Jamison is similar to Pease and suffers the same deficiencies
[reply brief]. Appellant also argues that Jamison is directed
-12-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007