Appeal No. 96-4139
Application 08/142,276
itself in the claimed combination would appear to be a question
of breadth, not indefiniteness.
Accordingly, we conclude that when the claims are read in
light of the disclosure, one of ordinary skill would find the
bounds of the claimed subject matter to be distinct, and we will
therefore not sustain the rejection under 35 USC § 112, second
paragraph.
Rejection (2)
"To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently". In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Chevalier does not
anticipate the claims because the protrusion 24 is not such that
"the transition from the protrusion to the shaft of said needle
is smooth in all directions including the portion of the
protrusion closest to said base portion [of the needle]", as
recited in claim 1. The examiner, on the other hand, states on
page 6 of the answer that the transition between Chevalier's
protrusion 24, "and in particular the area (47)", and the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007