Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 9
Application No. 08/856,943
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union
Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.
1987) (citing Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co.,
749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ
193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, although Tomura discloses that “a lug 218 for
fitting into a retaining slot of the portable telephone is
formed on an upper rear end side 212a of the upper case 212,”
col. 8, ll. 23-25, the lug protrudes neither toward the
reference’s “charging terminals 236,” id. at l. 44, nor toward
its “recess 216 for fitting therein of [sic] a swelled bottom
of a large-capacity battery pack . . . .” Id. at ll. 17-19.
To the contrary, Tomura depicts the lug 218 as protruding
generally perpendicular to the charging terminals 236 and
generally parallel to the recess 216. Figs. 16 and 17.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007