Appeal No. 2005-0637
Application No. 10/117,958
set forth in claims 15 and 17. We reach the opposite conclusion
with respect to the rejection of claim 16. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
We note 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 Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore & Assocs.
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 appealed claims 15 and 17, the Examiner
attempts to read the various limitations on the disclosure of
Martin. In particular, the Examiner points (Answer, page 3) to
the illustrations in Figures 1-3 of Martin as well as the
accompanying description beginning at column 2, line 66 of
Martin.
After reviewing the Martin reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Briefs. In particular, we agree with
Appellants (Brief, pages 3 and 4; Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007