Appeal No. 2002-1506
Application 09/219,934
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 evidence relied upon does not support either of the
rejections made by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-
19 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Mullins. 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).
Independent claims 1, 6, 12 and 18 stand or fall together
as a single group [brief, page 5]. With respect to
representative, independent claim 1, the examiner indicates how
he reads the claimed invention on the disclosure of Mullins
[answer, page 4]. Appellants argue that Mullins only teaches
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007