Appeal No. 2002-1380
Application No. 08/786,270 Page 4
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.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse, for
the reasons set forth by appellants, and add the following
comments. We begin with the rejection of claims 1-13, 15-27, 49-
53, 59-61, and 66-73 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Thomas. 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. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other
words, there must be no difference between the claimed invention
and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary
skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research
Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001,
1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007