Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
consideration, in reaching our decision, the 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.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon supports the examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 19, 26-28, 39, 41, 43 and 71, but
does not support the rejection of claims 9, 10, 15-17, 24, 25, 42, 44, 45, 50-57, 72 and
74. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 9, 10, 15, 17-19, 24, 26 and 71 as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Abe. 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 the invention of these claims is deemed to be fully
met by the disclosure of Abe [answer, page 4].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007