Ex Parte BOLDIZAR - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2002-0220                                                                  Page 5                 
              Application No. 08/964,496                                                                                   


              of a vehicle door window between the glass panel and one of the door panels (claim 1)                        
              or capable of engaging the linear channel of an automobile door (claim 9).                                   
                     The examiner’s reading of the claim elements on Taylor’s device is set forth on                       
              page 3 of the answer.  Appellant argues that the clamps 30 of Taylor’s registration                          
              device for positioning a silk screen frame against a smooth, flat surface or panel have a                    
              different structure and function than the slides 30, 32 of appellant’s invention and could                   
              not be used in the same manner to support the vehicle window from falling (brief, page                       
              6).  The examiner identifies Taylor’s clamps 30 as slides but offers no rationale and                        
              points to no teaching in Taylor to show that the clamps 30 are dimensioned so as to be                       
              capable of insertion between the glass panel and door panels of a vehicle door to                            
              engage the window channel.  Taylor certainly does not teach such a use of the clamps                         
              30 of the registration device and we find nothing in the teachings of Taylor which would                     
              lead one skilled in the art to conclude that the clamps 30 of Taylor are inherently3                         
              capable of achieving the function set forth in claims 1 and 9.                                               
                     Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,                         
              expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed                          
              invention.  RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221                           
              USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  In other words, there must be no difference between                         
              the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary                        

                     3 Under principles of inherency, when a reference is silent about an asserted inherent                
              characteristic, it must be clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing     
              described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.  Continental    
              Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007