Appeal No. 2003-0340
Application No. 09/096,403
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
appellants’ 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
examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 33, 36 and 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure
of Pasternak. 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,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007