Appeal No. 2002-0876 Page 3
Application No. 09/267,140
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation 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 does not support the rejections made by the examiner. 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).
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by the admitted prior art. The examiner has indicated how he purports to
read the invention of claim 1 on the admitted prior art Figure 3 [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants argue that the admitted prior art shown in Figure 3 does not disclose the
claimed connection of each of the arms being individually connected to a common
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007