Appeal No. 1998-0818
Application No. 08/319,143
Opinion
After careful review of the evidence before us, we agree
with the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
102. However, we disagree with the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We first consider the rejection of claim 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 102. 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 F2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385,388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228
(1984); W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984). A reference anticipates a claim if it
discloses the claimed invention "such that a skilled artisan
could take it’s teachings in combination with his own
knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the
invention." In re Graves 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007