Appeal No. 2002-1477
Application No. 09/544,849
Claims 14, 15, and 17-22, all of the appealed claims, stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Nishimura.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 14) and Answer
(Paper No. 15) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief along with
the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Nishimura reference does not fully meet the invention as
set forth in claims 14, 15, and 17-22. 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,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007