Appeal No. 2004-1163
Application No. 09/815,959
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 11 and 13
through 16 as being anticipated by Fukumoto
Fukumoto discloses a lock device for a vehicle luggage door.
The door includes a lid 86 pivoted at one end 88 to the body 80
of the vehicle, a base 1 affixed to the lid, a latch 2 rotatably
mounted on the base for movement between a first position in
hook-like engagement with a striker 90 on the vehicle body and a
second position in disengagement with the striker, a swing member
3 rotatably mounted on the base for releasably engaging the latch
to hold it in the first position, and a rubber-stopper 22 on the
latch for contacting a rubber-stopper 10 on the base to prevent
excess rotation of the latch.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no
difference between the claimed invention and the reference
disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field
of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech
Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
As framed and argued by the appellants (see pages 3 and 4 in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007