Appeal No. 1998-0943 Application No. 08/300,500 also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention set forth in claims 4, 12, and 13. Accordingly, we affirm-in- part. We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. � 102(e) as anticipated by McCain. 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 Assoc, 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 1, the Examiner’s analysis (Answer, pages 4 and 7) suggests how the various limitations are disclosed by McCain. In particular, the Examiner points to a discussion beginning at column 6, line 56 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007