Appeal No. 2002-2208 Page 4
Application No. 09/543,989
13Bb), a pair of inner leg members (section side webs 19Aa, 19Ab), an upper load
bearing portion (upper web 17A or 17B) and a lower support member (base web
sections 11A or 11B) connecting each outer leg member to an adjacent inner leg
member.
As disclosed by Pollock in the sentence bridging columns 5 and 6, the cover 7 “is
sufficiently flexible that following extruding and subsequent forming operations, long
continuous lengths of the cover may be rolled in a roll” and is characterized as being
sufficiently flexible that lifting and twisting the cover relative to the plank will not cause
damage to the cover or the plank and that the hooks 35a, 35b and cooperating ridges
37a, 37b deform sufficiently so as to release cross flanges 25 held therebetween
(column 8, lines 3-7). Pollock is silent with respect to the flexibility of the plank member
5A or 5B.
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. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631-33, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1052-54 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation
resides with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). When relying upon the theory of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007