Appeal No. 2002-0884
Application No. 08/852,507
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of
the rejections, 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, 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 Fults reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 1-6, but reach the opposite conclusion with respect
to claims 7-11. It is further our view that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention as
recited in claims 15-18. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Initially, we note that 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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007