Appeal No. 95-4616
Application 08/200,932
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in the substitute
Appeal Brief.
OPINION
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the
examiner and the appellant, we have concluded that none of the rejections should be
sustained. Our reasons for this decision follow.
The Rejection of Claim 105
This claim stands rejected as being anticipated by the Japanese reference.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). The Japanese reference discloses first and second caging members, as
required by the claim. However, the claim further specifies that the second caging
member be “attachably affixed to the first caging member,” which is not disclosed by
the reference, in which second caging member 20 is attached to base 30, and not to
first caging member 10 (see Figure 2).
This being the case, each and every limitation of the claim is not disclosed in the
reference, and the anticipation rejection cannot be sustained.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007