Appeal No. 1997-3913
Application No. 07/860,386
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
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).
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner has
explained how he reads the claim on the disclosure of Burger
[answer, pages 4-5]. We agree with appellants that their
disclosed invention is not the same as the invention described
in Burger. The question, however, is whether the claimed
invention is broad enough to read on Burger.
In describing the claimed invention, appellants refer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007