Appeal No. 04-0686 Page 3
Application No. 09/015,234
The appellants’ invention is directed to a safety binding for affixing a ski to a ski
boot of the type having a projecting sole. The safety binding comprises a jaw having
two arms (3, 4) which are independently rotatable so as to pivot laterally oppositely to
one another when a ski boot is pushed thereagainst. The arms are so constructed as to
have undersides which engage the sole of the boot to restrain it against vertical
movement with respect to the arms. As recited in claim 1, the arms also have “bearing
means intended to bear on an upper of the ski boot on either side of the ski boot.”
The claims stand rejected as being anticipated by Scheck,1 which discloses, inter
alia, a ski boot binding including a jaw having two arms (11, 12) that are independently
rotatable so as to open in opposite manner to one another when a ski boot is pressed
thereagainst. The arms have an underside (56) which “engages over the sole 39 of the
ski boot and holds the sole down” (column 5, lines 34-36). It is the examiner’s
contention that “bearing means (56) [are] intended to bear on an upper of the ski boot
(38) on either side of the ski boot (38)” (Answer, page 3, emphasis added). We agree
with the appellants that there is no evidence to support this conclusion. Not only is such
not explicitly described in the Scheck specification, but it does not appear from the
drawings that such is the case. Thus, Scheck fails to anticipate the subject matter
recited in claim 1 in that it does not disclose or teach the claimed “bearing means,” and
1Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir.
1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007