Appeal No. 1998-2490
Application 08/434,263
We now consider the various rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner has rejected claim 22 as being anticipated
by McCormick.
We note that a prior art reference anticipates the
subject of a claim when the reference discloses every feature
of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently (see
Hazani v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1984)).
After considering Appellants’ arguments [brief, pages 3
to 10] and Examiner’s position [answer, pages 3 to 5], we are
persuaded by Appellants that McCormick does not show the
limitations recited in claim 22. For example, McCormick does
not show the claimed limitation of “said shackle comprising an
elongated clamp ... which is capable of holding said mouse
cord ... , to limit movement of said computer mouse cord ...
between said clamp and said computer mouse.” Not only does
McCormick not show any structure capable of doing these
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007