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 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007