Appeal No. 2002-2100
Application No. 09/042,334
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 each of the appealed claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10,
and 11, the Examiner attempts to read the various limitations on
the disclosure of Wilkes. In particular, the Examiner points to
the illustration in Figure 1 of Wilkes along with the
accompanying description beginning at column 6, line 15.
Appellant’s arguments in response assert a failure of Wilkes
to disclose every limitation in the appealed claims as is
required to support a rejection based on anticipation. After
reviewing the Wilkes reference in light of the arguments of
record, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s position as
expressed in the Briefs.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007