Appeal No. 1997-1264
Application 07/882,560
separate arguments with respect to any of the claims within
each group. Accordingly, all the claims within each group
will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702
F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we
will consider the rejection against independent claims 1, 16
and 69 as representative of all the claims on appeal.
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 Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Assocs., 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 representative, independent claim 1,
the examiner purports to read the invention of this claim on
the disclosure of Guziak [answer, pages 4-5]. Appellant
argues that Guziak does not disclose the notice of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007