Appeal No. 2002-1657
Application No. 09/134,981
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Briefs 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 Futamura reference fully meets the invention as set forth
in claims 1, 3-9 and 11-19. We reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claims 2 and 20. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
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.); 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007