Ex parte ARVIDSSON - Page 3




                Appeal No. 95-3114                                                                                                            
                Application 08/051,800                                                                                                        


                3.       Claims 1, 6 and 21, unpatentable over either of Barbero or                                                           
                Tittel in view of either Morsch or Rauthmann, under 35 U.S.C.                                                                 
                 103;                                                                                                                        
                4.       Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23 and 24, under 35                                                               
                U.S.C.  112, second paragraph.                                                                                               
                Rejection 1                                                                                                                   
                         In order to constitute an anticipation of a claim under 35                                                           
                U.S.C.  102(b), a prior art reference must disclose every                                                                    
                limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or                                                                     
                inherently.  In re Schreiber, -- F.3d, --, --, 44 USPQ2d 1429,                                                                
                1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  In the present case, looking first at the                                                             
                Morsch reference, we do not find therein a fastening device which                                                             
                is immovably anchored on or fixed to the vehicle, as called for                                                               
                by each of the independent claims, since device (link) 16 is                                                                  
                pivoted on rivet 17 (see page 5, lines 5 to 8) .  We do not                  3                                                
                consider that the device's resting against seal 6 makes it                                                                    
                “immovable,” as the examiner asserts on page 7 of the answer.                                                                 
                         The Rauthmann and Dutschka '424 references likewise do not                                                           
                anticipate the claims because each of them requires, inter alia,                                                              
                that the integrity of the vehicle be modified by making holes in                                                              

                         3All citations herein to pages and lines of non-English                                                              
                language references are to the translations of the references                                                                 
                enclosed herewith.                                                                                                            
                                                                      3                                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007