Appeal 2007-2176
Application 10/309,852
[tablet C] inside…so that the distal end of the core rod [tablet B] is blocked
from sliding downward". The appeal brief does not provide argument for
the other claim limitations and, in any case, they appear to be met in this
alternative. We find this reading of claim 17 onto Berkey establishes a
facially sufficient case of anticipation.
Alternative IV, in which the bottom tablet C is the fusible fixing
member, does not appear to be consistent with Berkey. Berkey provides a
bottom dent 99 or a fused capillary tube 104 to retain tablet C. Berkey does
not otherwise provide a bottom restraint for tablet C and appears to expect
tablet C to require the further restraint at least until the components are
fused, after which the presence of a bottom restraint is moot. We find that
the fusible fixing member is missing from this alternative.
HOLDING
The Berkey patent anticipated claim 17. The other rejected claims,
having not been argued separately, fall with claim 17. The rejection of
claims 17 and 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is—
AFFIRMED
smt
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013