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
rejection.
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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007