Appeal No. 1999-0085
Application No. 08/427,514
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 the disclosure of Connor does not fully meet
the
invention as set forth in any of the appealed claims. We are
also of the view that Connor does not render claims 6 or 12
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7,
9-11, 13 and 14 as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Connor.
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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007