Appeal No. 1999-1821 Page 7
Application No. 08/725,335
For the reasons stated above we see no basis for the
examiner maintaining this rejection following entry of the
amendment after final. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 25, 26, 34 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6, 8, 10,
11, 23, 27, 32-36 and 39-43 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).
Claim 32 (the only independent claim on appeal) recites a
device for forming a connection between connectable elements,
comprising, inter alia, a first connectable member means; a
second connectable member means; and at least one tapered
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007