Appeal No. 2001-1633
Application 09/092,543
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, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs 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 evidence relied upon supports the examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-5, 13-16, 31 and 32. We reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to claims 24-26 and 30. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 13-16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Ushijima. 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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007