Appeal No. 1999-0529
Application 08/588,800
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosures of Martin and Ilcisin
anticipate the invention as set forth in the claims
respectively rejected on these references. We are also of the
view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 6 and 10-12. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejections made under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 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 first anticipation rejection rejects claims 24,
25, 2-5, 7, 9 and 13 based on the disclosure of Martin.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007