Appeal No. 1998-0710
Application 08/625,379
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Newman does fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 21 and 22. Accordingly, we
affirm.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will stand or fall together as a single
group [brief, page 3]. Consistent with this indication
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to the
two claims on appeal. Accordingly, both of the claims before
us will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore, we will consider the rejection against independent
claim 21 as representative of both claims on appeal.
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,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007