Appeal No. 96-1873
Application 08/062,274
The references applied by the examiner in the final
rejection are:
Nanna 2,415,146 Feb. 4, 1947
Fiore 5,090,724 Feb. 25, 1992
Manuszak 5,125,674 Jun. 30, 1992
The claims stand finally rejected on the following grounds:
1. Claims 1, 2 and 5 to 15, anticipated by Nanna, under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b);
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 11 to 15, anticipated by Fiore,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
3. Claims 1 to 5, 8 and 11 to 16, anticipated by Manuszak,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
After fully considering the record in light of the arguments
presented by appellant in her brief and reply brief, and by the
examiner in his answer, we conclude that none of these rejections
can be sustained.
“To anticipate a claim, 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, we find that each of
the independent claims recites a limitation which is not
disclosed in either of Nanna, Fiore or Manuszak, namely:
“wherein in said sitting condition said seat is disposed so as to
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007