Appeal No. 1999-1487
Application No. 08/591,599
Y-Y and a rear plate part 7 is located in a diagonal plane Z-
Z. The patentee also indicates that all intermediate
positions are possible (column 3, lines 4 through 7).
Like appellant (main brief, pages 7, 8, and 10 and reply
brief, page 3), we do not discern an express teaching in
Hinrichs of a chair capable of tilting forward, as claimed
(forward declining extreme position). Further the examiner 2
has not established that the chair arrangement of Hinrichs is
inherently capable of the range of movement of claim 1. As 3
pointed out by appellant (reply brief, page 3), the examiner
has been silent on the range of motion set forth in claim 1
2From the background portion of appellant’s specification
(pages 1 through 3), it appears that the claimed range of
movement between backwards inclining and forwards inclining
positions is known in the chair art.
3Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990); and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007