Appeal No. 2001-0877
Application 08/530,434
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by the
disclosure of Fujii is supported by the evidence, but the
rejection of claim 7 is not supported by the evidence. We are
also of the view, however, that none of the other rejections as
formulated by the examiner are supported by the applied prior
art. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure
of Fujii. 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).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007