Appeal No. 1999-0636 Page 7
Application No. 08/828,375
(26). Therefore, we have determined that Martinek does not
anticipate the subject matter of claim 20 or claims 16, 18, 24
and 26 through 28 which depend from claim 20.4
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner's decision to reject
claims 20, 16, 18, 24 and 26 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Martinek.
Turning next to the examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 21, Martinek discloses a "housing means"
(the shell-like structure as discussed above and incorporated
herein), the outermost edge surface of the "housing means"
forming a plane, and an expandable partition (gate 16) stored
within the "housing means." The gate (16) is expandable well
beyond, or to the right of in Figure 1, the outermost edge
surface of the shell-like "housing means." Therefore, from
our viewpoint, the gate is expandable "about" an arbitrary
axis (e.g., the axis running through the sixth vertical bar 17
from the left) located to the right of (beyond) the outermost
4 Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. See RCA Corp. V.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007