Appeal No. 98-1291
Application No. 08/586,524
examiner and the appellants as set forth in the Answer and the
Briefs.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub
nom., Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
The examiner finds all of the structure recited in
independent claim 1 in the transport trailer disclosed by
Koch. We agree with the appellants that such is not the case.
This reference suffers from several shortcomings. First, in
our opinion, the requirement that the pivot axis of the ramps
be “spaced toward said second side of said main frame”
(emphasis added) should, in view of the appellants’
specification, be interpreted to exclude the situation where
it is spaced beyond or outwardly of the second side of the
main frame, as is the case in Koch (see Figure 5). Therefore,
Koch does not disclose or teach this limitation. In addition,
claim 1 requires that the first end portion of each of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007