Appeal No. 1998-2570
Application No. 08/381,156
problem addressed by Schell, was ever a concern. It is our
opinion that the only basis for applying the teachings of
Schell to the micromirror structure of Nathanson comes from an
improper attempt to reconstruct Appellant's invention in
hindsight. Accordingly, since the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, the rejection
of independent claim 13 and claim 14 dependent thereon, over
the combination of Nathanson and Schell is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 15-17 as being anticipated by
Sampsell, we do not sustain this rejection as well.
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,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007