Appeal No. 2004-0839 Page 11
Application No. 09/347,695
The appellant's argument
The appellant's argue throughout both briefs that claim 1 is not anticipated by
Berquist since Berquist fails to disclose two limitations of claim 1. The first limitation
that the appellant asserts is not disclosed by Berquist is "an orientation device engaged
with said frame for selectively orienting said frame to vertical." Specifically, the
appellant argues that the claimed orientation device is not met by Berquist's rubber or
elastomeric pads 20.
The second limitation that the appellant asserts is not disclosed by Berquist is "a
hammer moveable relative to said frame to contact the soil in a vertical direction for
generating a case opening suitable for subsequent insertion of the geophone, wherein
said hammer is retractable from the case opening generated by said hammer."
Specifically, the appellant argues that the claimed hammer is not met by Berquist's
push tube 68.
The law
A claim is anticipated only if 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 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007