Ex Parte LELL - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2001-0726                                                        
          Application 09/272,969                                                      


          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 supports each             
          of the rejections before us.  Accordingly, we affirm.                       
          We consider first the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under                   
          35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of                
          Chinen.  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            

                                         -3-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007