Appeal No. 97-0801
Application 08/168,087
the teachings of Shen taken alone. Finally, claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Shen in view of Normille.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference to the briefs
and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced by the
examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for
the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in 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 Shen does not fully
meet the invention as recited in claims 1 and 5. We are also of the view that the evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 2-4 and 6-8. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 5 as anticipated by the disclosure of Shen.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007