Appeal No. 2001-0255
Application 08/733,567
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set 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 evidence relied upon by the examiner does not
support the rejection of any of the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Jung.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007