Appeal No. 97-3561
Application No. 08/352,190
Weverka, Kiasaleh or Lipsky. 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 never reads independent claims 1, 9 and
17 on the prior art references so that we are not certain how
the examiner finds anticipation. The initial rejection simply
stated that each of the applied references disclosed an
interferometer having an optical fiber, delay loops and means
for generating replicas of the delayed signals. The final
rejection observed that appellant’s arguments were not
commensurate with the scope of the claims, and the examiner
argued that each of the references show an interferoceiver
comprising optical fiber loops. The examiner’s answer added
nothing to the record with respect to the rejections under 35
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007