Appeal No. 2000-2266
Application No. 09/069,700
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17,
and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lynch.
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 Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore & Assocs.
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 independent claims 1, 8, 15, 22, and 23, the
Examiner attempts to read the various limitations on the
disclosure of Lynch. In particular, the Examiner directs
attention (Answer, page 3) to the illustrations in Figures
3-6 and 8 of Lynch along with the accompanying description
beginning at column 2, line 16.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure of Lynch
to disclose every limitation in claims 1, 8, 15, 22, and 23 as is
required to support a rejection based on anticipation. At pages
7-9 of the Brief, Appellants’ arguments focus on the contention
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007