Appeal No. 2000-0606
Application No. 08/755,435
13); Group IV (claims 5-9 and 14-18) and Group V (claims 10
and 19). However, appellants have not argued the
patentability of claims 2, 10, 11 and 19 separately from claim
1, claims 6-9 and 14-18 separately from claim 5 or claims 4,
12 and 13 apart from claim 3. Accordingly, we shall decide
the appeal of rejection (1) on the basis of claim 1, with
claims 2, 10, 11 and 19 standing or falling with
representative claim 1, the appeal of rejection (2) on the
basis of claim 5, with claims 6-9 and 14-18 standing or
falling with representative claim 5 and the appeal of
rejection (3) on the basis of claim 3, with claims 4, 12 and
13 standing or falling with representative claim 3. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA
1978).
The anticipation rejection
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. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007