Appeal No. 1998-0178
Application No. 08/254,854
of whether the scope of claim 24 is clear. The examiner seems
to understand exactly what is claimed in claim 24, but simply
objects to the form of the claim. It is sometimes possible to
describe things most accurately and succinctly by what they
are not. We agree with appellants that the artisan having
considered the specification of this application would have no
difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in
claims 24 and 26-30. Therefore, the rejection of claims 24
and 26-30 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not
sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 24 and 26-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by the disclosure of
Fujii. 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);
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007