Appeal No. 1996-3273
Application 08/127,932
art the invention as set forth in claims 1-6. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Blasbalg. These claims stand or fall together as a single
group
[brief, page 7]. 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 perceives the claimed
invention to read on the disclosure of Blasbalg [answer, pages
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007