Appeal No. 2003-1254 Page 3
Application No. 09/284,793
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied Strömberg patent, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Strömberg.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
Claim 6 reads as follows:
A clamping device for motor-drive straight-back and saber saws fixable to
a lifting rod, the clamping device comprising
a clamp holder;
a movable clamping piece arranged relative to said clamp holder so that a
saw blade can rest between said clamp holder and said movable clamping piece,
said clamping piece having a first side which faces toward said clamp holder and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007