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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007