Appeal No. 2003-1279
Application 09/455,621
1. Rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as unpatentable over Knight
Anticipation requires the disclosure, in a single prior
art reference, of each element of the claim under consideration.
See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
851 (1984). The main point of disagreement between appellants
and the examiner is whether Knight discloses a spring which is
“fixed” to the pusher member and the pin keeper to hold the
entire module together as a self-contained unit. The examiner
maintains that “[t]he term fixed does not require any structural
element for securement as argued by the appellant only the
relative location thereof. As illustrated in Figure 4 [of
Knight], the location of the elements relative to each other is
set and therefore within a broadest reasonable interpretation of
the term ‘fixed’.” Examiner’s Answer, Paper No. 12, mailed July
29, 2002, page 6.
Although the examiner is correct that during patent
prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable inter-
pretation, the examiner seems to ignore the further requirement
that this interpretation be consistent with the Specification and
claims. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007