Appeal No. 2004-1110
Application No. 08/866,754
significantly longer than the snaps and accordingly that the
Motorola device would not satisfy the above discussed functional
requirement of claim 52 since “the snaps can slide within the
receptacle allowing them to disengage, and the housing to open
up, when bending and/or torsion is applied” (brief, page 8). The
appellants’ characterization of the Motorola device has no
perceptible merit. The “receptacles” to which the appellants
seemingly refer plainly include a U-shaped section that is
dimensioned to snugly receive the “snaps” of the Motorola device.
Thus, we consider these elements of the Motorola device to be
inherently capable of performing the function recited in claim 52
and correspondingly that it is the appellants’ burden of showing
otherwise. Again see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44
USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 212, 169 USPQ at
228; and In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d at 663-64, 169 USPQ at 566-67.
Again, the appellants have provided the record before us with no
such proof.
It follows that we also hereby sustain the examiner’s
section 102 rejection of claims 52-58 as being anticipated by
Motorola.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007