Appeal No. 2002-1860
Application No. 09/204,275
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 Fujiura reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 6-8, 33-36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 48, 49, and 51-53.
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, we 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 1-5, 37, 40, and 50. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 6-8, 33-36, 38, 39,
42, 43, 48, 49, and 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Fujiura. 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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007