Appeal No. 2006-1649
Application No. 10/212,191
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
Bengtsson fully meets the invention as recited in claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 16. 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 1, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9,
11-13, and 16 based on Bengtsson. 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