Appeal No. 1997-0805
Application No. 08/314,189
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the Kohler reference does not fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 1-22. Accordingly, we
reverse.
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,
388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 18, the
Examiner attempts (Answer, page 3) to read the various
limitations on the disclosure of Kohler. In particular, the
Examiner, pointing to the description at column 5, lines 50-65
in Kohler, asserts the equivalence of the skill indicator
representation assigned to an agent in Kohler and the
“proficiency rating” set forth in the appealed claims.
After reviewing Appellants’ arguments in response (Brief,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007