Appeal No. 1998-1225
Application 08/542,884
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the prior art relied upon does not support the
rejection of any of claims 1-11. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-9 as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Galvin. These claims
stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page 5].
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 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to representative, independent claim 6, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007