Appeal No. 2001-1792 Page 3
Application No. 09/291,716
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Independent claim 1 recites a support frame and a bow positioning mechanism
attached to the support frame and “enabling an archer to readily take aim with the archery
bow to target the archery bow in generally any direction while assisting the archer to
stabilize the bow.” It is the examiner’s conclusion that all of the structure recited in this
claim is disclosed by Maxwell. The only argument raised by the appellant in reply is that
the Maxwell device does not enable the archer to target the bow in generally any direction.
Anticipation under Section 102 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). Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either the
inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or recognition of inherent properties that
may be possessed by the reference. See Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of
California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987). It does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007