Appeal No. 1999-1716 Page 5
Application No. 08/888,005
from the explanation of the invention provided in the
specification.
The Section 112 rejection is not sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Claim 13 stands rejected as being anticipated by the
French reference, which discloses a rotating joint in which a
universal joint installed between two rotating shafts is
stabilized by a pair of plates connected by a plurality of
articulated arms. In setting forth this rejection on page 5 of
the Answer, the examiner takes the position that the apertures
in plates 3 and 4, through which shafts 1 and 2 extend,
constitute the “aperture at the center” of the joint, as is
required by the claim. We do not agree, for as can clearly be
seen in Figure 1 of the reference, none of these apertures is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007