Appeal No. 96-1358
Application No. 08/192,055
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the German reference in view of Doyle.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
The Rejection Under Section 102
It is axiomatic that 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) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Independent claim 1 is directed to a portable bridge plate
assembly attachable and removable from facing ends of rail cars.
Among the limitations recited in this claim is that there be a
plate assembly including two relatively movable telescoping load
bearing plate members, and that one end of each plate member have
means thereon for removably attaching the plate member
to the end of a rail car in a manner to prevent
movement other than pivotal movement about a horizontal
axis (emphasis added).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007