Appeal No. 2003-0063
Application No. 09/201,919
the obviousness of the invention as recited in claims 3, 5, 10, and
13. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11,
12, and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Beer. 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).
With respect to independent claims 1, 2, 7, and 8, the
Examiner attempts to read the various limitations on the disclosure
of Beer. In particular, the Examiner directs attention (Answer,
pages 3 and 4) to the illustrations in Figures 1 and 2 of Beer
along with the accompanying description beginning at column 2, line
66.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure of Beer to
disclose every limitation in independent claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 as
is required to support a rejection based on anticipation. At pages
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007