Appeal No. 2000-2066
Application No. 08/829,471
forth in the Briefs 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 disclosure of the Sekine reference fully meets the claim
recitations as set forth in claim 8. We are further of the view
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art the invention as set forth in the appealed claim 9.
Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
of claim 8 as being anticipated by Sekine. 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007