Appeal No. 1998-2562
Application No. 08/567,403
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ 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 Bennin does not support either of the rejections set
forth by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 13, 17, 18 and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Bennin. These claims stand or fall together as
a single group [brief, page 4]. 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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007