Appeal No. 2001-1077
Application No. 09/051,506
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Brief (Paper No. 10) and the
Answer (Paper No. 11) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set
forth in the Brief 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 none of the applied Schmiedel, Lemmer, and Sitar references
fully meets the invention as set forth in the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we reverse.
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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007