Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
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).
At page 3 of the Answer, the Examiner indicates how the
various limitations in representative claim 2 are read on the
disclosure of Diehl. In particular, the Examiner points to Diehl’s
illustrations in Figure 1 along with the accompanying description
beginning at column 2, line 47 of Diehl.
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has as least satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. The
burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence
and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007