Appeal No. 2005-0768
Application No. 10/010,203
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). It is not necessary that the
reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only
that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or
fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner’s determination that the claim language at
issue reads on the combination of Mason’s gib 17, cushion 19 and
shoe 13 is well founded. Although Mason does not describe these
elements as constituting a “vibration isolator,” the cushion 19
and either, or both, of the gib 17 and the shoe 13 embody a
construction which (1) is structurally identical to the vibration
isolator recited in claim 2, i.e., a plurality of layers with at
least one layer (Mason’s gib 17 or shoe 13) being a hard layer
and at least one layer (Mason’s cushion 19) being a soft layer,
and (2) will inherently function to isolate vibrations.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007