Ex Parte ALEXANDER JR et al - Page 5




          Appeal No. 2001-0910                                                        
          Application No. 08/903,756                                                  
          in the art the obviousness of the invention as recited in claims            
          5, 12, and 21.  Accordingly, we reverse.                                    
               We consider first the rejection of claims 1-6 under                    
          35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by DeSimone.                        
          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 Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.               
          Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore & Assocs.           
          v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.              
          Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).                              
               With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the                   
          Examiner attempts to read the various limitations on the                    
          disclosure of DeSimone.  In particular, the Examiner directs                
          attention (Answer, pages 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15) to the                    









                                          5                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007