Appeal 2007-0016
Application 10/700,496
conclusion with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 7.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claims 1 and 3-6 based on Wu. 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. 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
4-5) how the various limitations are read on the disclosure of Wu. In
particular, the Examiner directs attention to the illustration in Figure 1 of Wu
as well as the disclosure at paragraphs [0019] and [0022 of Wu].
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we
find that the Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima
facie case of anticipation. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come
forward with evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s prima facie case. Only those arguments actually made by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013