Appeal No. 2004-0609 3
Application No. 09/900,787
Claims 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Levine in view of Ishiguro and Watanabe.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 6), the brief (paper number
10) and the answer (paper number 12) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 11 through 14, and sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 10 and 16.
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).
Appellant argues (brief, pages 3 and 4) that Levine does not disclose any of the
method steps of claim 1.
We disagree. Levine discloses a method of programming a chart recorder (Figure
1). A marking pen 108 is used to mark the surface of recording paper 102 with visible
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007