Appeal No. 2004-0910
Application No. 09/756,632
We turn next to the examiner’s rejections of claims 13
to 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tito and
Strayer.
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 examiner is of the opinion that both Tito and Strayer
describe although neither Tito or Strayer disclose the step of
“intentionally using the stimulus of the tactile stimulating
surface cue as a reminder....”, both references include a notch
or bump which could inherently act as a reminder cue for the
user.
We will not sustain either rejection as neither Tito nor
Strayer disclose the method recited in claim 13 from which claims
14 to 16 depend. There is no discussion in either reference of
performing the steps required by claim 13. Neither reference
includes a discussion of utilizing a cue to remind a user of the
safe position to use the firearm and therefore these references
contain no description of the positioning of such a cue. In
addition, there is no discussion in either reference of the step
Page 7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007