Appeal No. 2001-1792 Page 4
Application No. 09/291,716
require that the reference teach what the applicant is claiming, but only that the claim on
appeal "read on" something disclosed in the reference, that is, all limitations of the claim
are found in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp, 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the Maxwell archery device the bow is attached to rotatable hub 30 for pivotable
movement in a vertical plane (page 1, line 109 et seq.). The hub is attached, in turn, to a
vertical shaft 12 which is telescopically received in a tube 11 mounted on a base 10.
Height adjustment is provided by telescoping members 11 and 12, and the two are held in
the desired height relationship by a pin 15 extending through holes 14 in tube 12. This
arrangement is described as “a pin 15 resting in a notch for supporting the section 12 in
vertically adjusted position as well as limiting such section against rotation” (page 1, lines
67-70). The appellant focuses upon this passage as the basis for his argument that in the
Maxwell device the bow cannot meet the claim requirement that the bow be targetable in
“generally any direction.”
We find ourselves in agreement with the examiner that the Maxwell apparatus is
capable of allowing the bow to be targeted in the manner required by claim 1. Although the
patent states that rotation of shaft 12 in tube 11 is “limited,” it nevertheless is clear that
shaft 12 is capable of being rotated if enough rotative force is applied to cause the pin to
be moved out of the notch, or if the shaft is slightly lifted and rotated. In this regard, insofar
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007