Appeal No. 96-3313
Application 08/148,101
27 are located on the rear portion 16. This difference,
although not raised by appellants, would seem to mitigate
against anticipation of claims 1 and 27, since it is well
settled that anticipation is only established when a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under principles
of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed,
468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite that the attachment
points are “located on a side of said article behind a
transverse center plane of said article and within about 2.5
inches (6.4 centimeters) of said transverse center plane,”
while independent claim 27 recites that all the attachment
points are “located behind a transverse center plane of said
article and within about 2.5 inches (6.4 centimeters) of said
transverse center plane.” The examiner takes the position, in
effect, that these limitations are inherently met by Roessler,
because (answer, page 4):
When the article is worn by a “fat” baby the
attachment points will be located closer to the
transverse axis of the article, than when the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007