Appeal No. 97-2555
Application No. 08/215,062 Page 5
of the particular application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art. Id. In this case, the appellants specification
(pp. 30-38) and Figure 31 clearly define which dimension of the
rim is "the height" and which dimension of the rim is "the
thickness." Thus, the meaning of the term "the height" in claim
1 would be understood by one skilled in the art. Accordingly,
the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The prior art issues
Claims 1, 4 to 16 and 19 to 23
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13,
14, 19 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a, b and e). Likewise, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 5 to 8, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 20
to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set
forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to
whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007