Appeal No. 1998-0644
Application 08/637,588
claim 24. The examiner has not identified why the scope of
the invention recited in claim 24 would not be understood by
the artisan. Instead, the examiner simply disagrees with
appellants that claim 24 is consistent in scope with their
invention. It is an applicants’ right to define what the
invention is, and the scope of that invention can be claimed
as broadly as the prior art allows. We find that the metes
and bounds of the invention recited in claim 24 would be clear
to the artisan when considered in light of the specification.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 24 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 22 and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Barnes. 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007