Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 32
and 72 based on Waraksa.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
indecency, 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).
With respect to the appealed independent claims 32 and 72, the
Examiner attempts to read the various limitations on the disclosure
of Waraksa. In particular, the Examiner directs attention to the
illustration in Waraksa’s Figure 9 illustration along with the
accompanying description beginning at column 5, line 55 (and
including column 9, lines 40-55) of Waraksa.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure of Waraksa
to disclose every limitation in independent claims 32 and 72 as is
required to support a rejection based on anticipation. In the
arguments appearing at pages 38-40 of the Brief, Appellants’
assertions focus on the contention that, in contrast to the claimed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007