Appeal No. 2005-2135 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/038,910
piston or similar element can work on a fluid." Appellants have not cogently explained,
nor is it apparent to us, why Smalley’s tubular housing 6 falls short of meeting this
definition of “fluid cylinder” or why the washers 18, 19a and bushing 21 are not pistons
and an elastically deformable sealing member (note the compression of bushing 21
against the tubular housing in Figure 5), respectively, notwithstanding that Smalley does
not expressly refer to these elements as such. While anticipation requires the
disclosure of each and every limitation of the claim at issue in a single prior art
reference, it does not require such disclosure in haec verba. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656,
660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977). In addition, it does not require that the prior art
reference "teach" what the application at issue teaches. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark
Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984)..
Appellants also argue, with respect to claim 22, that Smalley's bushing 21 is
squeezed between linearly moveable washer 18 and load transfer element 10, which is
fastened by welding or the like to the housing 6 and thus is not linearly displaceable in
the fluid cylinder as claim 22 requires the pistons to be, and not between two pistons
(brief, pages 6-7). As pointed out by the examiner on page 4 of the answer, although
the load transfer element 10 assists in squeezing the bushings, the squeezing still takes
place between the two washers 18, 19a. Appellants' argument is thus not well taken.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007