Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
coupling includes flex frames of at least two different types
with different stiffnesses which compensate one another
(Specification at pages 10-12). Appellant’s further teach that
the dimensions for the frames necessary to meet the above
criteria can be determined by trial and error or by numerical
stress analysis
We turn first to the 102(b) rejection based on Wirth.
The factual determination of anticipation requires the disclosure
in a single reference of every element of the claimed invention.
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Diversitech
Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 7 USPQ2d 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 1988); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d
1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Alco Standard Corp. v. TVA,
808 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Marshall,
578 F.2d 301, 198 USPQ 344 (CCPA 1978); In re Arkley, 455 F.2d
586, 172 USPQ 524 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, it is incumbent upon
the examiner to identify wherein each and every facet of the
claimed invention is disclosed in the applied reference.
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730
F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Therefore, in order
for the examiner to establish a prima facie case of anticipation
based on Wirth, the examiner is obliged to point out where Wirth
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007