Appeal No. 1998-2569
Application No. 08/517,132
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs 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 Susman does not fully meet the invention as set forth
in claims 1-11. We are also 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 recited in claims 1-16.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Susman. 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007