Appeal No. 98-2086
Application 08/539,353
embodiments of the McIntosh lock bracket shown in Figures 1
and 2 and in Figure 3, respectively, to cover all of the
limitations in dependent claim 3 and its parent claim 1 (see
pages 3 and 4 in the final rejection) is also unsound.
Anticipation is not established if in reading a claim on
something disclosed in a reference it is necessary to pick,
choose and combine various portions of the disclosure not
directly related to each other by the teachings of the
reference. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88, 172 USPQ 524,
526 (CCPA 1972).
Thus, McIntosh does not disclose each and every element
of the invention set forth in claim 3 or in claim 6 which
depends therefrom. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of these claims as being
anticipated by McIntosh.
The following rejections are entered pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Claim 3, and claim 6 which depends therefrom, are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter the appellant regards as the invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007