Appeal No. 2004-1465 Application No. 09/316,752 Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof. 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 brief 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 any of the examiner’s rejections. Accordingly, we reverse. We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4, 17-20 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Shannon. 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. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007