Appeal No. 2006-1093
Application No. 09/842,471
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
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 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
disclosure of Robertson does not fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 1-
46, 48, 51, and 54. We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with respect to
claims 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, and 55. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
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). Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007