Appeal No. 1998-1323
Application 08/252,861
completely unsupported by this record. The mere fact that
multimedia existed would not have suggested the examiner’s
proposed modification of Takahashi.
In summary, the examiner’s reliance on Takahashi as
the primary reference or only reference in rejecting claim 1,
for example, fails to address all the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art. This results in a
failure to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Since
Takahashi appears to be the primary reference in rejecting
claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-24 as formulated by the examiner.
We now consider the rejection of claim 25 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by the disclosure of Cragun.
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.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007