Appeal No. 2000-1576
Application 09/169,179
appeal, because the embossed ridge (28) that is “swaged” out
of the base portion (12) therein would not have been viewed by
one of ordinary skill in the art as being the same as the
liner holding member of claim 1 on appeal that is “struck
from” the metal material of the spring supporting portion of
the clip. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner‘s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bechtoldt.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6 and
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ayres, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellant’s position (brief,
pages 3-5 and reply brief, pages 2-5) that appellant has
provided sufficient evidence to establish that the patentee
(Donald B. Ayres) derived his knowledge of the liner holding
members (e.g., tabs 91-94) disclosed in that patent from
appellant and that appellant was the inventor of that subject
matter. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant has
successfully removed the Ayres’ patent as a reference against
the present application. For that reason, we will not sustain
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007