Appeal No. 1999-1065
Application No. 08/754,379
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The § 102(b) rejection
We will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 21 through 24, 30 and 31.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 21 reads as follows:
A friction wear pad for a caliper disk brake, comprising:
an elongated substantially elliptical body portion having a
pair of orthogonal axes; semi-circular radiused end portions
extending from and interrupting said substantially elliptical
body portion at diametrically opposed ends of one of said
orthogonal axes; and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007