Appeal No. 1998-2676
Application 08/655,423
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 Lin does not support either
of the examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 15-
17 and 19 as being anticipated by the disclosure of Lin.
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 indicates how he reads independent claims
1 and 15 on the disclosure of Lin [answer, pages 4-6]. With
respect to each of claims 1 and 15, appellants argue that Lin
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007