Appeal No. 96-0561
Application 08/055,584
specifically teach what the appellant has disclosed and is
claiming but only that the claims on appeal "read on" something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim
are found in the 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). In the present case, all the
limitations of claims 1, 4, 7 and 9 are found in Hirmer, either
expressly or under principles of inherency, and those claims
are clearly anticipated thereby.
Turning to the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5,
6 and 10 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hirmer in view of Rossmann, the examiner has taken the
position that because the semi-circular elements (11, 12) of
Rossmann have a flat face (e.g., as seen in Fig. 3), it is a
reasonable interpretation to say that these elements are made
from "thin flat-stock spring steel," as set forth in appellant's
above-noted claims on appeal. We do not agree. The elements
(11, 12) in Rossmann are shown in the drawings and expressly
described therein as being "semi-circular" in cross section with
flat faces facing each other as seen in Figure 3. Thus, in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007