Appeal No. 96-1419
Application 08/081,971
through 7, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. See
Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230
USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (The absence from the reference of
any element of a claim negates anticipation of that claim by the
applied reference).
With regard to claim 12, Schuplin does not expressly or
inherently disclose a living hinge for interconnecting the
clamping portions or the location of his joist inside a vehicle
passenger compartment even if the joist is construed as being a
“mounting plate.” As a result, Schuplin also is not a proper
anticipatory reference for the subject matter of claim 12. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, the § 102(b) rejection of claims
1 through 7 and 12 is not sustainable.
With regard to the § 103 rejection of claim 8, the cited
prior art contains no suggestion that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to replace Schmidt’s mirror-mounting
fender bracket with Schuplin’s pipe hanger. Even if it is
assumed arguendo that there is such a suggestion, the result
would not meet all of the terms of the claim for reasons
discussed supra. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 8 also
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007