Appeal No. 1998-3420
Application 08/597,033
particular, we are unable to agree with the examiner that the
annular wall (64) of Reisman with its snaps (61) is somehow
readable on the “spaced prongs” set forth in claim 14. While
the annular wall (64) clearly extends downwardly from and
generally perpendicularly to the base (66) of the rosette in
Reisman Figures 9 and 10, this wall does not in any way define
“spaced prongs” as in appellants’ claim 14 on appeal. As for
the snaps (61) of Reisman, these components may be “spaced
prongs,” but they extend radially outwardly from the wall (64)
and not generally perpendicularly to the base from a bottom
surface of the base, as set forth in independent claim 14 on
appeal. Thus, since Reisman does not
disclose each and every element of independent claim 14 on
appeal, either expressly or under principles of inherency, we
must refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 14,
and of dependent claims 16, 19, 22 and 23, under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Reisman.
Turning next to the examiner’s rejection of claims
14, 16 through 19, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007