Appeal No. 2004-0613
Application No. 09/857,551
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 18, mailed Jun. 4, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 17, filed Mar. 10, 2003) and reply
brief (Paper No. 19, filed Jun. 12, 2003) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
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. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no difference between
the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary
skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech
Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellants argue that the difference between Wellman and the claimed invention
is that the claimed invention generates and outputs through an output one signal which
is the combined primary and secondary signal which contains information concerning
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007