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