Appeal No. 1996-1577
Application No. 08/215,205
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 evidence relied upon does not fully meet
nor render obvious the invention as set forth in claims 1, 2,
5-8, 11-13, 18 and 19. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of independent claim 1
on the alternative grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Helmuth. With respect to the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102, 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).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007