Appeal No. 1998-0500
Application 08/504,478
set forth in claim 17. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 13-16 and 18
as being anticipated by the disclosure of Brodsky.
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 each of these claims, the examiner
indicates how he reads these claims on the disclosure of
Brodsky on page 2 of the answer. Appellant argues that the
examiner’s interpretation of Brodsky is based solely on
unsupported speculation. It is also argued that the examiner
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007