Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. 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 rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and examiner, for the
reasons stated infra, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 13
and 20 through 40 and 47 through 54. We reverse the examiner’s rejection of
claims 14 through 19 and 41 through 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102 OVER COCKRUM
We first consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 29, 31, 32, 41, 42
and 44 through 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. 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).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007