Appeal No. 1999-1904 Page 5
Application No. 08/704,778
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).
The appellant does not take issue with the examiner's determination that Scarlett's web
30 and chord 10 respond, respectively, to the connecting element and construction element
recited in claim 25 or that the first planar sections 14 of each groove 13 are inwardly mutually
divergent, solely planar side wall portions and the paired legs 37 are bendable to one another
into a compressed condition and have outer sides which are mutually divergent toward a free
outer end 33 as required by the claim. The appellant, however, does assert on pages 5-8 of the
brief that the legs 37 of Scarlett are not "in said compressed condition" (with the legs bent
toward one another) "in an installed state," as required by claim 25, and that, consequently, the
legs also fail to "resiliently engage" the planar side wall portions of the groove as further
required by claim 25. In fact, pointing to language in column 3, lines 10-14 and 39-48, column
5, lines 52-58, and column 6, lines 12-28, the appellant urges that Scarlett makes a deliberate
effort to prevent a compressed state.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007