Appeal 2007-0703
Application 11/044,945
1 ISSUE
2 The sole issue for consideration on appeal is whether the subject matter of
3 claims 1-13 is anticipated by the disclosure of Stumpf.
4
5 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
6 The prior art may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it
7 non-novel, either expressly or inherently. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d
8 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 907
9 (2003). Express anticipation occurs when the prior art expressly discloses each
10 limitation (i.e., each element) of a claim. Id. In addition, “[i]t is well settled that a
11 prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in
12 that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.” Id.
13
14 FINDINGS OF FACT
15 Stumpf discloses a bevel stop mechanism for a miter saw. Also, it is noted
16 that counsel for Appellants is one of the named inventors in the Stumpf
17 application, therefore Appellants’ counsel has some familiarity with the subject
18 matter disclosed in Stumpf. The Examiner and Appellants have each provided this
19 Panel with annotated drawings of Stumpf’s Fig. 19. The Appellants’ drawing
20 purports to show that there is no overlap between the first range of positions and
21 the second range of positions, whereas the Examiner’s annotated drawing purport
22 to show that there is some slight overlap. The embodiment of Stumpf illustrated in
23 Fig. 19 utilizes a step 122 on the distal end of a stop rod 84. (Stumpf, col. 8, l. 61).
24 As shown in Fig. 19, the step 122 is provided so that upon rotation of rod 84 the
25 step 122 will either bypass or contact the stop 88a. Stop 88a in this context is the
26 claimed first fixed member.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013