Appeal No. 2003-1851
Application No. 09/556,157
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Garman.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address
only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 11, 16, 21 and 31.
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in
issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works
v. Sumitomo Electric, 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1965
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim 1
The appellant’s claim 1 requires means for expanding an
expandable member upwardly and forwardly.
The examiner argues that Garman’s cushion panel 61
corresponds to the appellant’s expandable member (final
rejection, page 2; answer, page 4). The cushion panel, however,
is not expandable. Instead, it is pivotable from a hanging
position to a horizontal position when pushed against by
expanding supporting device 60 (col. 7, lines 6-14; figure 9A).1
1 The examiner has not established that Garman’s supporting
device 60 is expandable upwardly and forwardly.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007