Appeal No. 2006-0513
Application No. 09/741,684
one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention
as set forth in claim 12. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s
rejections of the appealed claims are organized according to a
suggested grouping of claims indicated at page 3 of the Brief.
We will consider the appealed claims separately only to the
extent separate arguments for patentability are presented. Any
dependent claim not separately argued will stand or fall with its
base claim. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136,
137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ
1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 7-11 based on Albrecht. At the outset, we
note that 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007