Appeal No. 2001-0610 Page 5
Application No. 08/931,932
determining the metes and bounds of this claim, notwithstanding the presence of the
language to which the examiner refers, and therefore the disputed language does not
render the claim indefinite.
The examiner also is of the view that claim 16 is indefinite because the preamble
states that the invention is directed to securing “a” fastener, which is singular, while step (e)
states that the steps of the method are repeated, which indicates that the method is
directed to a plurality of fasteners. We agree with the appellant that the method refers to
securing one fastener at a time, and thus there is no inconsistency between the preamble
and step (e), and the claim is not indefinite.
The rejection of claims 3-10, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Claims 1, 12, 15, 16 and 17 stand rejected as being anticipated by Ohlson.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of
2
the claimed invention. We cannot agree with the examiner that this is the case with any of
the claims so rejected, and therefore we will not sustain this rejection.
2See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir.
1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007