Appeal No. 2002-1685 Page 3
Application No. 08/995,431
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 14 to 17
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The examiner is of the opinion
that Lile discloses the invention as claimed.
The appellant argues that Lile does not disclose at least
one tensioning member extending around the door and connected to
and producing a spring tension in the rods.
The examiner states:
The concentric circles of Lile extend around
the door and produce a spring tension in the
rods since the rods are shown to be bent in
an arc such as in Fig. 2. If the rods were
not under a spring tension, they would be
straight. [final rejection at page 4]
As such the examiner states that Lile inherently discloses
each and every element of the claims. We note that the prior
art reference need not expressly disclose each claimed element
in order to anticipate the claimed invention. See Tyler
Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus. Corp., 777 F.2d 687, 689, 227 USPQ
845, 846-847 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Rather, if a claimed element (or
elements) is inherent in a prior art reference, then that element
(or elements) is disclosed for purposes of finding anticipation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007