Appeal No. 2004-0921
Application No. 09/472,134
concerns are unfounded and miss the point that the language in
the claims relating to the standard rider and standard position
merely set forth theoretical criteria by which the claimed
snowmobile is defined. As the examiner has not disputed the
detailed descriptions of the standard rider and standard position
in the underlying specification, it is not apparent why the use
of these terms in the claims to set forth the metes and bounds of
the claimed snowmobile poses a definiteness problem.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claims 1 through 49, 55, 57, 58,
64 through 68, 77 through 84, 87, 88 and 90.
V. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 73 as being
anticipated by Kitamura
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no
difference between the claimed invention and the reference
disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field
of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech
Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007