Appeal No. 1999-2259
Application 08/711,614
all of the claimed elements (i.e. a busway housing) and their
limitations (i.e. a flat surface of the surge clamp
continuously engaging the flat surface of the busway
housing).” Brief at 7. Appellant further argues that if
Rinderer does not anticipate claim 1, it [Rinderer] cannot
anticipate dependent claim 4. Brief at 8.
The Examiner maintains that the features upon which the
applicant relies (i.e. a housing having a flat surface) are
not recited in the rejected claims [of Appellant]. Examiner’s
Answer, page 6. “What is claimed,” asserts the Examiner, “is
an extruded form being cutable to a length determined by a
particular width and having a generally flat surface extending
along a longitudinal axis of the extruded form defining a
centrally located passage extending from a first end to a
second end.” Examiner’s Answer at page 6. The Examiner
concludes that Rinderer discloses the extruded form
being cutable to a length in Figs. 1-5 being used as rungs for
the cable tray. Examiner’s Answer at page 6.
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires
that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be
disclosed in a single prior art reference.” In re Paulsen, 30
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007