Appeal No. 1999-0645 Page 3
Application No. 08/799,056
appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims , to the applied prior art reference, and to the2
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
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. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there
must be no difference between the claimed invention and the
reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill
in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research
Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001,
2We note that "the tab" in claim 12, line 4, lacks antecedent basis in
the claim. We leave this to be addressed in the event of any further
prosecution before the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007