Ex Parte CROYLE - Page 7




              Appeal No. 2002-1778                                                                  Page 7                
              Application No. 09/285,078                                                                                  


                     After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences                         
              between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained.  Graham v. John                        
              Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).                                                     


                    Based on our analysis and review of Jacks and claim 1, it is our opinion that                        
              there is no difference.  The only possible distinction between Jacks and claim 1 is the                     
              limitation that the clamp has a pair of jaws arranged to receive an ornament.  It is our                    
              view that this limitation is met by Jacks.  As disclosed, Jacks' secondary spring clip 2                    
              has a size adapted to grip the body of a suitable torch.  In our view, the claimed                          
              ornament3 is readable on Jacks' torch since a torch placed on his electric torch support                    
              would decorate or adorn the support.  Additionally, Jacks' secondary spring clip 2 is                       
              capable of receiving other suitably sized ornaments such as a flower corsage.  Claim 1                      
              is readable on4 Jacks as follows: A body-worn holder for an ornamentation (Jacks'                           
              electric torch support), comprising: a generally curved band whose configuration is                         
              adapted to attach the band to a human body (Jacks' main spring clip 1 has a                                 

                     3 The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, (1982) defines "ornament" as             
              "something that decorates or adorns."                                                                       
                     4 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 subject matter is encompassed by the claim       
              and what subject matter is described by the reference.  As set forth by the court in Kalman v.              
              Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.         
              1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
              limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."                                 






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007