Appeal No. 1999-0595
Application 08/704,186
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
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 evidence relied upon does not support the
prior art rejections made by the examiner. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-7 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by the disclosure
of Ishii. These claims stand or fall together as a single
group [brief, page 2]. We will consider claim 1 as the
representative claim for this group. 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.,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007