Ex parte GLOVER - Page 4

            Appeal No. 1998-2482                                                                              
            Application No. 08/533,429                                                                        

                   We now turn to the rejection under 35 U.S.C.  102(b).  We will sustain this               
                   Anticipation, under 35 U.S.C.  102, requires that each element of the claim in            
            issue be found, either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single          
            prior art reference.  Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781,            
            789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).                                                                             
                   The examiner contends that Hadley’s gasket 3 has a pair of leg members and that if         
            the groove had straight sides rather than the inclined sides, a modification suggested by         
            Hadley itself,  then the leg members would deflect away from each other “because the              
            straight sides of the groove will not retain the leg members in a secure position as the          
            slanted sides of the groove” [answer-page 7].  However, the flexible conductive strip 3 of        
            Hadley is shown in various Figures and in each Figure, it appears to us that if the strip is      
            compressed, the legs of that strip will either stay in position, held by the slanted edges of     
            the groove, with only the main body of the strip being compressed or, in the case of a            
            straight sided groove, the legs will deflect inward, toward each other, as opposed to the         
            claimed direction.  In any event, it would be a matter of speculation, at best, to say that the   
            legs of strip 3 in Hadley would be deflected away from each other when the strip is under         
            compression and a rejection under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) cannot be based on speculation.              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007