Appeal No. 2002-2154 Page 6
Application No. 09/217,496
In the anticipation rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner (answer, p. 3)
determined that the claimed shank member was readable on1 the pins 14 of Morgan.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 8-9) that the claimed shanks and the pins 14 of Morgan
have exactly opposite, structures, functions and assembly and accordingly the claimed
shank member is not met by the pins 14 of Morgan.
In our view, the claimed shank member is not readable on the pins 14 of
Morgan. In that regard, the pins 14 of Morgan do not span between a pair of facing
terminal ends of respective modules 12 and cooperating therewith to form a releasable
rigid, load bearing coupling between adjacent modules.
For the reasons set forth above the subject matter of claims 1 to 5, 8, 13, 14 and
16 to 24 is not anticipated by Morgan. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 to 5, 8, 13, 14 and 16 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
1 The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is
encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the
court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the
reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007