Appeal No. 97-0746
Application 08/135,883
In support of his § 102(b) rejection, the examiner relies
on the embodiment shown in Figures 1-6 of the Pfister patent.
As noted on page 4 of his answer, he reads appellant’s L-
shaped members on Pfister’s two L-shaped shaft assemblies each
having shaft elements 42 and 82. He also reads appellant’s
vertical frame on Pfister’s structural member 12 which is
described in the patentee’s specification as a “vertical frame
member” (specification, column 2, line 47). However, Pfister
discloses that his L-shaped shaft assemblies are fixed by a
clamp 44 to a
mid region of his vertical frame member 12 (see, for example,
Figure 1 of Pfister’s patent drawings), not to the lower end
of the vertical frame as required by appealed claim 1.
Accordingly, Pfister is not a proper anticipatory
reference for the subject matter of claim 1 and of claim 2,
which depends from claim 1. Compare 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007