Appeal No. 2000-1308
Application 08/550,909
pages 5-9]. We essentially agree with all the arguments made by
appellants in the briefs. Although the amendment filed
concurrently with the appeal brief was not entered, the error in
claim 19 in referring to paragraph (c)(ii) would clearly have
been understood by the artisan as being a typographical error.
The artisan would have understood that paragraph (b)(ii) was
intended. We agree with appellants that the scope of all the
rejected claims would be clear to the artisan. Therefore, we do
not sustain this rejection of the claims.
We now consider the rejections of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Rager or Rivest. 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. 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).
With respect to the rejection of claims 18, 19, 21 and 22
as anticipated by Rager, the examiner notes that many of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007