Appeal No. 1999-0086
Application No. 08/612,820
unconventional so as to require more than a “black box”
description of the fuzzy logic module. It is our opinion that
the level of skill relative to computerized numerical control
(CNC) systems at the time of filing of Appellants’ application
would enable the skilled artisan to implement the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims
under the enabling provisions of the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 1 and 18, we note that
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 Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984);
W. L. Gore and Assoc, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007