Appeal No. 1998-2541
Application No. 08/608,372
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Moe fully meets the invention as
set forth in claims 15-17, 19 and 20. We reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to claims 9, 12 and 21. We are
further 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 as set forth in claims 2 and 5. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 9, 12, 15-17
and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 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. 1984); 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). The
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007