Appeal No. 2002-2081
Application 09/304,188
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 disclosure of Shimony does not fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 1-19. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a single
group [brief, page 3]. Consistent with this indication
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any of
the claims on appeal. Accordingly, all the claims before us will
stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325,
231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we will consider
the rejection against independent claim 1 as representative of
all the claims on appeal.
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
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007