Appeal No. 2002-0955 Page 5
Application No. 09/511,921
bend or kink, but rather will deform until the load is removed
at which time it will return to its original spherical shape.
We find nothing in this discussion which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art
to understand that some degree of flattening or recesses in an otherwise ellipsoidal
shape would preclude that shape from being considered “generally ellipsoidal.”3 We
thus conclude that Kilgore’s support elements 332, which are ellipsoidal in shape with
the exception of the upper and lower flattenings and the recesses therein, meet the
limitation “generally ellipsoidal in shape” of claims 4, 21 and 24.
The “generally ellipsoidal in shape” limitation being the only limitation in claims 4,
21 and 24 which appellants argue is not met by Kilgore, we shall sustain the examiner’s
rejection of these claims as being anticipated4 by Kilgore. In that appellants have
chosen not to argue the patentability of claim 25 apart from claim 24, claim 25 is treated
as standing or falling with claims 4, 21 and 24. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137,
3 It is worthy of note that our determination with regard to the meaning of “generally ellipsoidal” is
based in no part on the examiner’s observation on page 7 of the answer that appellants’ shock-absorber
elements 44 have a flat top and bottom. We appreciate appellants’ point, on page 2 of the reply brief, that,
as illustrated in Figure 4, appellants’ elements 44 have spherical, not flattened contours, the upper and
lower portions of which are to some extent concealed by the sockets 54 in Figure 1.
4 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
1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the reference teach what
the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e.,
that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark
Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007