Interference No. 1051a
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(e) requires that "each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USP Q2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). As a consequence, we conclude that Tarpill has
failed to carry its burden of showing that Nilsson anticipates claim I of Bourbeau, as
interpreted above. We shall deny Tarpill Preliminary Motion I as it pertains to
anticipation.
III. The Parties' Positions on Obviousness
Tarpill's Preliminary Motion I alternatively urges that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
modified Nilsson's vertically movable and swingable base portion 63 by providing a
vertically movable base portion with a pivot that allows for pivoting motion in a plane
perpendicular to the workpiece so as to permit more ready access to the notches for
insertion of the workpieces. (Tarpill Preliminary Motion 1, Paper 25, page 11, third
paragraph). Such pivoting engagements are said to be shown by Bihler, Nakamura or
Taylor (Id., page 11, first and second paragraphs).
As Tarpill's factual analysis is deficient, we need not belabor the record beyond
pointing out that this argument fails to address the requirement of claim 1 that the cable
retaining members are "supported for movement" away from and towards each other and
away from and towards cable receiving and cable retaining positions.
We find no description in Bihler, Nakamura, or Taylor of the claimed cable
retaining members supported for the claimed movement. Each of the cited "secondary"
references is relied upon by Tarpill for describing upon for the pivotable closure of a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007