Appeal No. 1998-0449
Application 08/578,900
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Pinkham does not fully meet
the invention as set forth in claims 15-28. Accordingly, we
reverse.
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 independent claim 15, the examiner
indicates how he reads the invention on the disclosure of
Pinkham [final rejection, Paper No. 7]. Appellant argues that
the examiner has read the claimed invention on improper
elements of the Pinkham disclosure [brief, pages 4-5].
Appellant also argues that regardless of whether the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007