Appeal No. 1998-2557
Application No. 08/335,550
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the applied prior art does not support any of the
rejections made by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 26 and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Gerard. 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).
The examiner indicates how he reads these claims on the
disclosure of Gerard [final rejection, pages 2-3]. Appellant
makes the following arguments in the brief: 1) appellant
argues that the claimed invention is directed to an a priori
scheme for encoding blocks of data whereas Gerard is directed
to an a posteriori scheme for encoding such data blocks; and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007