Appeal No. 2006-1333
Application No. 10/347,849
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of
Venkatesan fully meets the invention as recited in claims 24 and 25. 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 obviousness of the invention as set forth in the appealed claims
26-32. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 24 and 25
based on Venkatesan. 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. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claim 24, the Examiner indicates (Answer, page 4) how
the various limitations are read on the disclosure of Venkatesan. In particular, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007