Appeal No. 2006-0975
Application No. 10/079,792
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected claims 1 to 4 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). We initially
note that to support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b), it must be shown
that each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
In regard to the rejection, the examiner finds:
Yoder discloses a slopeboard (generally 1) useable
on a tractor having a primary push blade 18, of the type
having a moldboard 18 and a framework (generally 2). The
framework having a solid steel (as shown in the cross
hatchings of figure 2) member attached thereto with an
integral inner pivotal mounting 3 and an outer pivotal
mounting 10, both of which have an aperture formed therein
(as seen in figure 1) [answer at page 3].
. . .”framework (generally 2)” is written as a general area
numeral and is to also include members 3 &4. Further, the
solid member as claimed can be seen in figure 2, area
immediately above reference numeral 2 [final rejection at
page 2].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013