Appeal No. 2004-1750
Application No. 09/985,937
every limitation of claims 24 and 25 on appeal. More
particularly, while it is true that Garber discloses a method of
providing a weight bearing support surface for railroad rails and
a method of maintaining desired spacing between railroad rails,
wherein each method comprises attaching rails to at least one
railroad tie, we note that the railroad ties seen in Garber are
clearly not of the particular type and construction set forth in
appellants' claim 1 on appeal, which tie is specifically required
to be used in the method defined in claims 24 and 25 on appeal.
When establishing anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, all
limitations recited in a claim must be considered and the
examiner must show where each and every feature of the claimed
invention is described in the allegedly anticipatory reference.
Like appellants, we note that the examiner may not arbitrarily
decide that some claim limitations or features can simply be
ignored, as has happened in the present application. Since
Garber does not disclose or teach, either expressly or
inherently, each and every limitation of appellants' claims 24
and 25 on appeal, it follows that the examiner's rejection of
those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will not be sustained.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007