Ex Parte MOORE et al - Page 9




                 Appeal No. 2002-0911                                                                                   Page 9                     
                 Application No. 09/272,115                                                                                                        


                 perceive in claims 1 and 5 neither a requirement that the boom extension or other                                                 
                 component part to be connected to the crane be brought to the crane by a separate                                                 
                 truck nor a preclusion that the boom extension or other component part be partly                                                  
                 connected to the base section prior to the positioning, raising, lowering and connecting                                          
                 steps.                                                                                                                            
                         As for appellants’ arguments that Carter’s derricking cable system 22 includes a                                          
                 winch carried on the upper deck of the crane and thus is not “self-contained” in the                                              
                 base section (main jib hinge portion 4) and “bodily movable with” the base section, as                                            
                 already pointed out above in our discussion of the meaning of these terms with respect                                            
                 to the indefiniteness rejection, “self-contained” merely requires that the lifter be fully                                        
                 contained on the crane, which Carter’s derricking cable system is, and “bodily movable                                            
                 with” merely requires that the lifter be capable of being moved as a unit with the base                                           
                 section.  In this case, the derricking cable system is capable of being moved as a unit                                           
                 with the main jib hinge section 4 when the crane either rotates on its turntable or is                                            
                 driven along the ground.  Neither claim 1 nor claim 5 calls for the lifter to be contained                                        
                 within the base section.                                                                                                          
                         For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the examiner’s determination that                                          
                 the subject matter of claims 1 and 5 is anticipated2 by Carter.                                                                   

                         2 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 skill in the field of the invention.  Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d                       
                                                                                                                   (continued...)                  





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007