Appeal No. 2005-1361
Application No. 09/798,287 3
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 evidence relied upon supports each of the examiner’s
rejections. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 16-
20, 22-27, 29 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Dow. 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 Dow [answer, pages
6-12]. With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue
that Dow fails to teach reading status values from a plurality of
status registers as claimed, but instead, teaches reading the
status values of one UUT at a time. Appellants also argue that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007