Appeal No. 95-4269
Application 08/123,700
Assuming that a reference is properly “prior art,” it
is only necessary that the claims under attack, as
construed by the court, “read on” something disclosed
in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim
are found in the reference, or “fully met” by it.
For the reasons discussed above, we find that Katsanis
discloses every element recited in claim 24, including structure
capable of performing the functions of the claimed means. We
therefore conclude that claim 24 is anticipated by Katsanis under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants state on page 2 of their brief that the rejected
claims do not stand or fall together, but have presented no
explanation of why any of claims 11 to 13, 16 to 18, 25 or 26 are
believed to be separately patentable from claim 24. Therefore,
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), those claims fall together with
claim 24.
Rejection (1) will be sustained.
Rejections (2) and (3)
Claims 14 and 15 recite:
14. A grating system as defined in claim 24 wherein said
energy absorbing means is operated with compressed gas.
15. A grating system as defined in claim 24 wherein said
energy absorbing means comprises hydraulic means.
As secondary references in rejections (2) and (3), the
examiner cites Muller and Miller, respectively, each of which
discloses an impact-absorbing vehicle bumper. The bumper of
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007