Appeal No. 2002-1056
Application No. 08/772,888
are also of the 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 obviousness of the invention as
recited in claims 4, 11, 13, 15, 19-21, 26, 30-32, 34 and 37.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14,
16-18, 22-25, 27-29, 33, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Birk. 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).
With respect to independent claims 1-3 and 5-8, the Examiner
attempts to read the various limitations on the disclosure of
Birk. In particular, the Examiner directs attention to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007