Appeal No. 2001-0682
Application No. 09/003,572
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, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Brief 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 Sites reference does not
fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 1-3, 6, 9-19, 21, 24-29, 32, 35-45, 47, and 50-52.
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we are also of the view that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as recited in claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 20, 22, 23, 30, 31, 33,
34, 46, 48, and 49. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 9-19, 21, 24-29, 32, 35-45, 47, and 50-52
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sites. 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 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007