Appeal No. 2002-2208 Page 8
Application No. 09/543,989
claim 25, or claims 26 and 27 which depend therefrom, as being anticipated5 by van
den Broek.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 25-27 as being anticipated by Yoder is
articulated on page 4 of the answer as follows:
Yoder ‘448 shows, Figs. 2, 6, and 7, elongated extrusions 24
having outer legs 40 connected to inner legs 44 as by a
horizontal support member 46 with an upper load bearing
horizontal portion 38. Retaining tab of an inner leg is as
along 48.
With respect to the resiliency limitation of claim 25, the examiner states on page 6 of
the answer that
[t]he extrusion of Yoder ‘448 can be flexed about a central
axis, (as about an axis running within support 42), with the
legs 48, (extending inwardly on either side), capable of
grasping under any locking tab of an element, or connector,
if one were to desire to hold the inwardly directed legs in the
same manner as the outwardly directed legs are held by
locking tabs 58.
The only argument offered by appellant as to why the subject matter of claim 25
is not anticipated by Yoder is that Yoder shows a much different connection method
than does appellant; specifically, Yoder teaches a connection method in which the
extrusion (plank member 24) is flexed inwardly and downwardly in order for lateral
member 48 to be angularly inserted underneath locking tab 58 and lacks a teaching or
5 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007