Appeal No. 2001-1898
Application No. 08/835,945
Appellants' claims 55 and 56 are analogous to the
claim approved in Stencel, where the driver is claimed
in terms of the structure of the collar in which it is
intended to operate. As in Stencel and in Smith
Corona,[3] appellants have described their invention,
the bar, in terms of its intended environment, a hollow
post or pipe over which has been placed a sleeve. The
claims are clear as written, without including the
functional sleeve as an element of the claim.
This argument is not persuasive. We do not regard claim 55 as
analogous to the claim in Stencel, because in claim 55 the bar is
not claimed in terms of the sleeve, but rather it is recited that
the bar's rotation "is substantially impeded by a sleeve." As
discussed above, we do not consider that it is clear whether or
not claims 55 and 56 are claiming a sleeve.
Rejection (1) therefore will be sustained.
Rejection (2)
"It is well settled that a claim is anticipated if each and
every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a
single prior art reference." Celeritas Technologies, Ltd. v.
Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522
(Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 874 (1999). However,
the law of anticipation does not require that the reference
"teach" what the subject matter of the application teaches,
3 Smith Corona Corp. v. Pelikan, Inc., 784 F.Supp. 452 (M.D. Tenn. 1992), aff'd mem.,
1 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007