Appeal No. 2004-1899
Application No. 09/608,469
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, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the
Briefs 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 Beeler
reference does not fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 1, 3, 24, 26-28, 45, and
47-49. With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we are also of the view
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as recited
in claims 2, 4, 5, 25, and 46. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 3, 24, 26-28, 45, and 47-49 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Beeler. 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,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007