Appeal No. 1998-3006 Page 10
Application No. 08/586,977
The anticipation issues
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 7, 9
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
In this case, we agree with the appellants that claims 1
to 4, 7, 9 and 11 are not anticipated by Haines since
limitations of claims 1 and 9 (the independent claims on
appeal) are not found in Haines as set forth below.
The examiner's basis for the rejection of claims 1 and 9
(answer, pp. 4-5) was that Haines taught the following claimed
elements: a hub (Haines' hub 42); a motive wheel (Haines' disc
39); a driven wheel (Haines' disc 41); driving means or motor
(Haines' motor 23); a thrust ring (Haines' disclike plate 45);
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007