Appeal No. 2000-1890
Application 08/828,297
on the drive suspension of claim 1 in addition to the mass
balancing structures previously recited in claim 1. Therefore,
no antecedent basis is required for the added mass sections of
claim 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection of claim
10.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-8, 10 and 12-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure
of Hinlein. 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).
The examiner indicates how he reads the claimed invention
on the disclosure of Hinlein [answer, page 4]. With respect to
claims 1-8, 10 and 12 which stand or fall together [brief, page
4], appellant argues that the tabs of Hinlein cannot be used for
both mass balancing and retaining electrical leads. Appellant
also argues that even if the bent tabs of Hinlein constituted a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007