Appeal No. 2001-1895 Page 6
Application No. 09/235,180
because it does not illustrate the precise point at which each of the claimed method steps
occur. Nor, because of the explanation from the patent quoted above, is there reason to
believe that the conclusion is merely guesswork, as alleged by the appellants. A reference
anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could
take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in
possession of the invention. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701
(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301
F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962). In this regard, the appellants have
presented no evidence which would support a conclusion that even though frictional
contact between the two conical surfaces has been achieved, as described in the above
quotation from the specification, synchronization actually has not begun.
The rejection of claim 6 is sustained. In view of the fact that the appellants have
chosen to group claim 7 with claim 6 (Brief, page 3), we also will sustain the rejection of
claim 7.
SUMMARY
The rejection is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007