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, 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007