Appeal No. 1997-1232
Application No. 08/182,035
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections, and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, Appellant’s 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 Answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that neither the disclosure of Weber nor that of Carmon
fully meets the invention as recited in claims 1, 2, and 23.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Weber.
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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007