Appeal No. 2006-0862
Application No. 10/039,928
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of the rejections, 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, Appellants’ 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 disclosure of
Dolin fully meets the invention as recited in claims 1-3, 6, and 7. In addition, with
respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we are of the opinion that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in the appealed claims 4 and 5.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-3, 6,
and 7 based on Dolin. At the outset, we note that it is well settled 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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007