Appeal No. 2006-2321
Application No. 10/706,254
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Hussein reference fully meets the invention as set forth
in claims 1 and 2. We are further of the opinion that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art
would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as recited in claims 5-13, 16, and
17. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of appealed claims 1 and 2 based on Hussein. We note
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. 1984), W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner indicates
(Answer, page 3) how the various limitations are read on the
disclosure of Hussein. In particular, the Examiner points to the
illustration in Hussein’s Figure 1 as well as the discussion at
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007