Appeal No. 2001-0050
Application No. 08/753,883
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner,
we make reference to the Briefs1 and the Answer for the respective
details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Briefs along with
the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Nishikawa reference does not fully meet the invention as
set forth in claims 1-3. Accordingly, we reverse.
We note that 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,
1 The Appeal Brief was filed March 13, 2000 (Paper No. 20). In response
to the Examiner's Answer dated May 11, 2000 (Paper No. 21), a Reply Brief was
filed July 11, 2000 (Paper No. 22) which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner as indicated in the communication dated September 27, 2000 (Paper No.
24).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007