Appeal No. 1997-1343
Application 29/039,800
122 F.3d 1456, 1461, 43 USPQ2d 1887, 1890 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is axiomatic that anticipation of a
claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Appellants argue on pages 4 and 5 of the
brief, that the Examiner has incorrectly focused on the cross-sectional shape of the scale weighing
platform of the invention when comparing it to article #1623 of Dahlstrom. Appellants argue that
article #1623 of Dahlstrom does not show the appearance of the entire scale weighing platform of the
invention. In particular, Appellants argue that article #1623 of Dahlstrom does not show the length of
the article. On page 6 of the brief, Appellants argue that the length and width of the embodiments of
the scale weighing platform of Appellants' invention are relatively the same magnitude. Appellants argue
that article #1623 of Dahlstrom does not show the length to be relatively the same magnitude.
Appellants argue that the compact, substantially equilateral shape of the scale weighing platform of
Appellants' invention as can be seen in figures 3, 5, 8 and 10 of Appellants' drawings imparts an
aesthetic appearance of strength and rigidity.
Upon our review of Dahlstrom, we find that Dahlstrom only shows the cross section of article
#1623. Dahlstrom shows another article #655 cross-section as well as an isometric drawing of #655 in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007