Appeal No. 1996-3619
Application No. 08/397,021
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, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Brief 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 the disclosure of Kraus fully meets the invention as
recited in claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 19, and 21. We are also of the
view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention set forth in
claims 4, 11, and 22. Accordingly, we affirm.
We first consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 19, and 21 as anticipated by
Kraus. 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 Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007