Appeal No. 2005-0490
Application 09/399,065
us, that the disclosure of Li does not fully meet nor render
obvious the invention as set forth in the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-10, 12-21 and
23-38 as being anticipated by Li. 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).
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims subject to this rejection will stand or fall
together in the following two groups: Group I has claims 1-7, 10,
12-18, 21, 23-31 and 34-38, and Group II has claims 8, 9, 19, 20,
32 and 33. Consistent with this indication appellants have made
no separate arguments with respect to any of the claims within
each group. Accordingly, all the claims within each group will
stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007