Appeal No. 1997-3970
Application No. 08/391,379
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 disclosures of Ozawa and Sawada do not
fully meet the invention as recited in claims 2, 14, 15, 27,
28 and 35. We are also of the view that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not
have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 3-13, 16-26 and 29-34. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 2, 14, 15,
27, 28 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
the disclosure of Ozawa. 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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007