Appeal No. 2001-1340
Application 08/944,885
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner
as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration,
in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs 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 the evidence relied
upon does not support the examiner’s rejection of 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. 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).
The examiner has indicated how he purports to read the claimed invention on
the disclosure of Hogan [answer, page 4]. Appellants argue that Hogan’s device is far
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007