Appeal No. 2005-0523 Page 3
Application No. 10/264,733
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 disclosure of Miloushev does not support either of
the prior art rejections made by the examiner. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-5, 12, 13 and
15-17 as being anticipated by Miloushev. 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).
The examiner has indicated how he reads the claimed
invention on the disclosure of Miloushev [rejection mailed March
28, 2003, pages 2-3; incorporated into answer at page 3].
Appellant has indicated that these claims stand or fall together
as a single group [brief, page 6]. With respect to
representative claim 1, appellant argues that Miloushev fails to
teach selective use of one object in place of another object that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007