Appeal No. 2003-1640
Application 09/634,692
appellant was in possession of embodiments of the rudder trim adjustment assembly specified by
the limitations in these claims. However, when the same disclosure is considered in light of the
description of additional structure for the trim adjustment assembly at page 6, lines 1-11, of the
specification, we determine that as a matter of fact on this record, the written description in the
specification as a whole is sufficient to reasonably convey to persons skilled in this art that
appellant was in possession of such embodiments encompassed by appealed claims 23 and 25,
even though certain of the limitations are not set forth in the identical words in these passages of
the specification.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of appealed claims 18, 20, 21, 23 and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement.
Turning now to the grounds of rejection under § 102(b), it is well settled that in making
out a prima facie case of anticipation under § 102, each and every element of the claimed
invention, arranged as required by the claims, must be found in a single prior art reference, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency. See generally, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc.,
850 F.2d 675, 677-78, 7 USPQ 1315, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
We find that, when considered in light of the written description in the specification,
including the drawings, as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, see, e.g., In re Thrift,
298 F.3d 1357, 1364, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2006 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the plain language of appealed claim 1 specifies that
the rudder assembly comprises, inter alia, “a rudder housing” which is shown as numeral 20 in
and described with respect to, for example, Figs. 4 and 6 of the specification (e.g., pages 7-8).
The interpretation of this term is the dispositive issue with respect to the ground of rejection of
claim 1 over Pelletier which discloses rudder-blade support 4 and bar support 8, both of which
are attached to rudder blade 2. We find it apparent from the Figs. and disclosure at, e.g., col. 3,
lines 17-36, of the reference, that it is rudder-blade support 4 which provides the support for
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007