Ex Parte Lamberton et al - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2006-0252                                            3           
          Application No. 09/755,564                                                  

          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the                       
          examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the             
          respective details thereof.                                                 
          OPINION                                                                     
          We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,                  
          the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence of                  
          anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the                 
          rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into                      
          consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’                    
          arguments set forth in the brief 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 disclosure of Denker does fully meet the invention as              
          set forth in the claims on appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.                 
          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                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007