Appeal No. 1998-2571
Application No. 08/515,383
§ 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner has rejected claims 26 to 28, and 31 to 37
as being anticipated by Conway.
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)).
We have reviewed the positions of the Examiner [answer,
pages 3 to 6] and Appellant [brief, pages 4 to 5 and reply
brief, pages 1 and 2]. We first take claim 26. Appellant
argues [brief, page 4] that “Conway’s ball-in-socket joint is
not a hinge with an axis of rotation fixed and perpendicular
with respect to the first axis.” We disagree. The American
Heritage Dictionary, second college edition, defines a hinge
as “[a] jointed or flexible device that allows the turning or
pivoting of a part, such as a . . . lid, on a stationary
frame.” (Emphasis added). Conway also speaks of axis 28 is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007