Appeal No. 2004-0940
Application No. 09/908,146
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 8) and Answer
(Paper No. 9) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Ooishi reference does not fully meet the invention as
set forth in claims 1-22, 24, and 25. Accordingly, we reverse.
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 Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore &
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007