Appeal No. 2002-2276
Application No. 09/472,702
the opinion that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill
in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention set forth in
claims 2-4. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 20, and 21 based on Chambers. At
the outset, 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 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 claims 1, 20, and 21, the Examiner indicates
(Answer, page 3) how the various limitations are read on the
disclosure of Chambers. In particular, the Examiner directs
attention to the illustration in Figure 5 of Chambers along with
the accompanying description beginning at column 5, line 47.
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our opinion
that the stated position is sufficiently reasonable that we find
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007