Appeal No. 2002-1549 Page 3
Application No. 09/315,101
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Claims 1-5 stand rejected as being anticipated by Grover. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for
example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir.
1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For the reasons explained below, it is our conclusion that the subject matter recited in
claims 1-5 is not anticipated by Grover, and therefore we will not sustain this rejection.
As explained in the specification, the appellant’s invention provides table legs
that are independently adjustable so as to allow the table to be leveled when placed
upon an uneven surface. The adjustment of each leg is accomplished by pivotally
attaching it to the table top, and providing an adjustment means that is pivotally
attached to the table top on the one hand and to the leg on the other hand and which,
when adjusted, varies the angle between the table top and the leg and thus varies the
effective length of the leg so that compensation can be made for uneven surfaces.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007