Appeal No. 1997-2683
Application No. 08/590,016
obviousness of the invention as recited in claims 1 and 2.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shutt.
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
attempts to read the various claim limitations on the
illustrations in Figures 1 through 6 of Shutt. In particular,
the Examiner (Answer, page 4) points to the Figure 1
illustration in Shutt as showing at least a portion of mirror
11 and frame 15 in front of the exterior surface of a toilet
bowl.
- -4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007