Appeal No. 2002-1257
Application No. 08/913,523
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Holland reference does not fully meet the invention as
set forth in claim 11. With respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness 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 12, 13, 15, 18,
and 19. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Holland. 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 Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed,
468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claim 11, the Examiner attempts
to read the various limitations on the disclosure of Holland. In
particular, the Examiner directs attention (Answer, pages 2 and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007