Appeal No. 1998-2517
Application 08/317,129
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
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 applied by the examiner does not
support the rejection of any of claims 1, 4, 24, 25, 29, 32,
52, 53 and 57-74. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 24, 25, 52, 53,
59 and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the
disclosure of Miyazaki. 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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007