Appeal No. 2004-0209 Page 4
Application No. 09/120,778
The examiner has taken the position that the subject matter recited in claim 24 is
anticipated1 by Bettcher. In particular, the examiner finds that the annular blade
disclosed in Bettcher is supported by “a bead on the support structure (26) and lines of
bearing contact formed in part by spaced bearing surfaces formed on the blade (Figure
4)” (Answer, page 3). While the examiner attempts to explain why he finds that line
contact is shown in Bettcher (Answer, pages 5 and 6), we do not follow his reasoning
and do not agree with his conclusion. It is clear from the detailed structure shown in
Figure 4 that Bettcher supports the blade by means of three rectilinear bearing
surfaces on “flange 26," which is part of the blade support, which engage three
opposed rectilinear bearing surfaces in a circumferential groove defined by portions 65
and 66 of the blade. As such, the blade support system of Bettcher does not comprise
a pair of spaced “line[s] of contact” but spaced areas of contact. From our perspective,
the Bettcher system is exactly the type discussed on pages 1 and 2 of the appellants’
specification, over which the appellants consider their invention to be an improvement.
Since all of the subject matter set forth in claim 24 is not disclosed or taught by
Bettcher, the Section 102 rejection cannot be sustained. Nor, it follows, will we sustain
the like rejection of claim 25, which depends from claim 24.
1Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for example, RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007