Appeal No. 96-4144 Page 11
Application No. 08/169,019
panel in the slot means" does not "read on" Husted's 2
configuration (i.e., rod member 30 having camming surfaces 33 and
34). Since each element of claim 1 is not found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in Husted,
the examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 through 6
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Husted in view
of Shave.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 which depends from claim 1.
The additional prior art of Shave does not provide any teaching
or suggestion that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have modified Husted to include "roller
2The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim
must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth
by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on'
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of
the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007