Appeal No. 2002-1314 Application 09/412,902 rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the 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 evidence relied upon does not support the examiner’s rejection. 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, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); 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). The examiner has indicated how he reads the invention of claim 9 on the disclosure of Courts. Appellants argue that in Courts data pages are clustered based on when they are first accessed which is a time of page access. Appellants note that claim 9 requires that the clustering be based on something more -3-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007