Appeal No. 2000-0084 Page 3
Application No. 08/619,672
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 Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
Independent claim 9 stands rejected as being anticipated by Ariel. 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 In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 9 requires, inter alia, that the rivet include “a substantially rounded transition
region having a radius and extending from said shank [of the rivet] to a bottom of said rivet
head.” The examiner is of the view that this is disclosed in Ariel by virtue of the curved
portion that the examiner believes is shown at the point of joinder between the rivet head
and shank in Figures 2-5. While it is our view that a problem exists with regard to the
definiteness of this language of the claim, in the interest of judicial economy we shall pass
judgement on the propriety of the examiner’s rejection. In this regard, the issue of
indefiniteness arises with regard to the manner in which the rounded transition region is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007