Appeal No.2003-1091
Application No. 09/484,248
recited in claims 1. We reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claim 14. In addition, we are of 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 2-13 and 18-20,
but not the invention as recited in claims 15-17. Accordingly,
we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1 and 14 based on Butcher. 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 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 claim 1, the Examiner indicates
(Answer, pages 3 and 4) how the various limitations are read on
the disclosure of Butcher. In particular, the Examiner directs
attention to the illustration in Figure 3 of Butcher along with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007