Appeal No. 2001-0846 Page 5
Application No. 08/797,960
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).
In this case, we agree with the appellant's argument
(substitute brief, pp. 10-22) that the claims under appeal are
not anticipated by Trotter. While Trotter does teach (page 2,
left column, lines 63-68) forming a very fine slit in member 5
while the member is stretched over a mandrel, Trotter does not
teach applying both stretching and clamping forces. In that
regard, there is no teaching in Trotter of applying clamping
forces at an interior area of the fluid flow control valve
member immediately surrounding where the cut is made in the
interior area during the cutting step as recited in the claims
under appeal. In the appellant's method, as shown for2
2For example, claim 15 recites
including applying opposed clamping forces to said fluid
flow control valve member in said interior area of said
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007