Appeal No. 2003-0212 Page 3
Application No. 09/089,053
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon supports the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-6, but does not support the examiner’s
rejection of claims 7-12. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims within each rejection will all stand or fall
together as a single group [brief, page 4]. Consistent with this
indication appellants have made no separate arguments with
respect to any of the claims on appeal within each rejection.
Accordingly, all the claims before us subject to each rejection
will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702
F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we
will consider the rejection against independent claims 1 and 7 as
representative of all the claims on appeal.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Meyer.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007