Appeal No. 2003-1825 Page 4
Application No. 09/672,492
Anticipation is a factual determination. See In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1283 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566,
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case before us, the examiner has
determined that Brookhyser discloses, either expressly or
inherently, a coupling device including a rigid mounting ring
(25), prong (lug, 20) and a manually operable securing device
(set screw, 28) that meets (describes) every limitation of the
invention set forth in claim 1.
Appellant, on the other hand, argues (brief, page 9) that
the here claimed prong does not read on the lug (20) of
Brookhyser and that the lug of Brookhyser is not associated with
a rigid mounting ring as required by claim 1.1 As pointed out by
the examiner (answer, pages 5 and 6), however, both the lug of
Brookhyser and the claimed prong are projecting parts that
appellant has not structurally distinguished on this record. We
note that appellant has not furnished a special definition for
the term “prong” in their specification that would suggest a
structure that differs from the lug (20) taught by Brookhyser or
otherwise explained in the brief how the parts differ
1 See 37 CFR 1.192(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007