Appeal No. 2005-0474 3
Application No. 09/966,484
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer. It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the Langworthy
reference fully meets the invention as set forth in claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 9. Accordingly,
we affirm.
At the outset, we note that Appellant’s suggested claim grouping (Brief, page 2)
asserts the independent patentability of claim 4, which, as stated supra, the Examiner has
indicated as being allowable. The remaining claims on appeal are argued together as a
group with Appellants’ arguments being directed solely to features which are set forth in
independent claim 1. Accordingly, we will select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for all the claims on appeal, and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 will stand
or fall with claim 1. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Turning to the merits of the Examiner’s rejection, it is well settled that 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007