Appeal No. 2003-1145
Application No. 09/080,241
that the Chan reference fully meets the invention as set forth in
claim 30. Accordingly, we affirm.
We note that 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. 1984); 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).
At pages 3 and 4 of the Answer, the Examiner indicates how
the various limitations in appealed claim 30 are read on the
disclosure of Chan. In particular, the Examiner points to Chan’s
illustrations in Figures 2 and 13 along with the respective
accompanying descriptions beginning at column 2, line 33 and
column 56, line 42 of Chan.
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has as least satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. The
burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with
evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007