Appeal No. 1998-2566
Application 08/685,420
of the rejections as formulated by the examiner. Accordingly,
we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 8,
10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Erpelding. 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 has indicated how he reads the claimed
invention on the disclosure of Erpelding [answer, pages 4-5].
With respect to independent claim 2, appellants argue that the
flexure in Erpelding is the area located above slot 47. Thus,
appellants argue that since there is a space 47 in the first
layer between the link portion and the slider support member,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007