Appeal No. 2002-1216 Application No. 09/034,466 With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 4, 6 and 9, the Examiner relies on Figures 1A and 1B of Budde and asserts that the shape and proportions of the connecting portion between load beam spring 12 and proximate end 14 presents the claimed “oblique angle” and lateral extent of the straight and the radiused portions (answer, pages 9 & 10). The Examiner, further provides enlarged copies of the shape of the connecting portion, apparently obtained from Figure 1B, as exhibits A and B (attached to the answer), to show the angle and the proportions of the lateral extent. A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that the four corners of a single prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants argue that there is no relevant text in Budde to describe the claimed features or the advantages of one kind of radius over another (brief, pages 11 & 12). We agree with Appellants since when the reference does not specify that the -4-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007