Appeal No. 1997-2857
Application 08/171,175
rejection of claims 1-5 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
We next consider the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Fincher.
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
disclosure of Fincher (Answer, page 3, which makes reference
to the final Office action mailed May 15, 1995, paper no. 11).
In particular, the Examiner points to the illustrations in
Figures 5 and 8 and accompanying descriptions at columns 13,
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007