Appeal No. 2005-0788
Application 09/757,951
1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we will consider the rejection
against independent claim 9 as representative of all the claims
on appeal.
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 finds the claimed
invention to be fully met by the disclosure of Ginter [final
rejection, pages 3-5; incorporated into answer at page 3].
Appellant argues that the rights distributor 106 of Ginter does
not meet several recitations of each of the independent claims.
Specifically, appellant points out in some detail why Ginter
fails to meet all the recitations of the two receiving steps and
the comparing step of the claimed invention [brief, pages 4-13].
The examiner responds by noting several teachings of Ginter
[answer, pages 3-5]. Appellant responds by asserting that Ginter
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007