Appeal No. 1998-2720 Application 08/352,730 as being anticipated by the disclosure of Wakabayashi. Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof. OPINION We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection 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 Wakabayashi does not fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 1 and 3. 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 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007