Appeal No. 2006-2808
Application 09/896,162
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Gill 5,751,521 May 12, 1998
Claims 5-7, 9, 10, 15-17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Gill.
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 rejection 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 rejection 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 Gill
does fully meet the invention as set forth in the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm.
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 Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007