Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
an artisan to be "at least one connecting member positioned
internally relative said gripping member connecting said gripping
member with a steering column." Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1 to 8, 10 to 15, 20 to 33, 35, 37, 38
and 40 to 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The anticipation issue
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Kato
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 6, 8, 10
to 15, 20, 38 and 40 to 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kato.
Kato does not disclose a plurality of control pads
positioned in a separate "open at one side recess" as set forth
in independent claims 1, 3 and 6 and dependent claim 43.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007