Appeal No. 2002-2321
Application 09/283,268
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon does not support either of the
rejections made by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 11, 15-18,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Cochran. 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. 1984), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984);
W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007