Appeal No. 2005-0200
Application No. 09/840,817
respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 3, 7, 11, 15, 16, 19, and 20. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10,
12-14, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by de Haan. 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 Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore &
Assocs., 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 1, 5, 9, 13,
and 17, the Examiner attempts to read the various limitations on
the disclosure of de Haan. In particular, the Examiner directs
attention (Answer, pages 3-5) to various portions of pages 368-
371, 374, and 375 of de Haan.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007