Appeal No. 1999-0653 Page 7
Application No. 08/226,564
that the provision of a mounting end 20' made of compressible material would permit a user to
exert sufficient axial pressure on the device to force the transverse limb of the head through the
slot away from the mounting end 20' and past such a side wall falling within an appropriate
thickness range, so that the head can be rotated into the locking position.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The anticipation rejections
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp.
v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984). In other words, there must be no difference between the claimed invention and the
reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.
Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d
1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject
application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e.,
that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v.
Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007