Ex parte HURST et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1998-2556                                                        
          Application 08/571,044                                                      


          offered no argument in rebuttal of the rejection, we sustain                
          the examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 11 under the second               
          paragraph of 35 U.S.C.                                                      
           112.                                                                      





          We next consider the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5,                        
          8, 10, 12, 14 and 15 as being anticipated by the disclosure of              
          Grotz.  These claims stand or fall together as a single group.              
          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 1,                        
                                         -5-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007