Appeal No. 98-0952
Application No. 08/399,434
does not have a bow extending between two head elements as
defined in the independent claims on appeal.
Since the limitation pertaining to the bow is not
expressly or inherently met by the U.K. patent, we cannot
agree that this patent constitutes a proper anticipatory
reference for the subject matter of independent claims 17, 21
and 33 and, hence, for the subject matter of dependent claims
19 and 35. 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 the claim negates
anticipation of that claim by the reference). Furthermore,
with particular regard to claim 17, the U.K. patent does not
expressly or inherently disclose a handle construction in
which an intermediate handle portion extends from a “central
area of a respective head element . . .”
For the foregoing reasons, we must reverse the examiner’s
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 17, 19, 21, 33 and 35. We also
must reverse the examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 18, 20,
22 through 32 and 34 inasmuch as neither the Wang patent nor
the Wyatt patent rectifies the foregoing shortcoming of the
U.K. patent.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007