Appeal No. 97-0935
Application 08/340,905
Therefore, we will reverse the rejection of claim 8. Our
reasons follow.
Turning first to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection with
respect to claim 8, we are in agreement with the appellants
that the term "the part of the shaft adjacent the tip" in
claim 8 can readily be seen as referring to "a part of the
shaft adjacent the tip" in independent claim 14. As such, the
meaning of claim 8 is clear in this regard, and one of
ordinary skill would have no trouble determining the metes and
bounds of dependent claim 8. Accordingly, the rejection of
this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). It does not require either the
inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or recognition
of inherent properties that may be possessed by the reference
(Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007