Appeal No. 2001-0045 Page 3
Application No. 09/103,347
to the Brief (Paper No. 15) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 18) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Representative Claim 1
A rack for mounting equipment composed of a seismically sound skeleton
structure having spaced vertical uprights supplemented by distinct spaced
equipment mounting structures attached to said skeleton structure and
extending along said vertical uprights and constituting side wall structures
of a mounting rack interior space in lateral extension of said vertical
uprights and including means for mounting said equipment.
The Examiner’s Rejections
All of the examiner’s rejections are under 35 U.S.C. § 102.3
The Rejection On The Basis Of Anderson
3Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 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),
nor does it require that the reference teach what the applicant is claiming, but only that the claim on
appeal "read on" something disclosed in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp, 713 F.2d
760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007