Appeal No. 2005-1637
Application No. 09/749,713
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments set
forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support
of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Bell reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 6-19. Accordingly, we reverse.
At the outset, we note that anticipation is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of indecency, 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).
With respect to the appealed independent claims 6, 11, and 15,
the Examiner attempts to read the various limitations on the
disclosure of Bell. In particular, the Examiner points to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007