Appeal No. 2004-1250
Application No. 09/760,400 Page 4
that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based
solely on the selected representative claim”). Accordingly,
appealed claims 1-3 and 6 stand or fall together and we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim on which we shall
decide this appeal with respect to this ground of rejection.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, anticipation requires that the prior
art reference disclose, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, every limitation of the claim. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Other than
appellant’s arguments pertaining to the use of the claimed device
with infants and small children and sizing of the claimed device
to accommodate same (brief, page 9), appellant does not
specifically dispute the examiner’s factual determinations that
Chung discloses a portable vibratory structure corresponding to
the claim 1 structure including: (1) a housing (Figure 2 and
column 3, lines 24 and 25) corresponding to the claimed main
housing; (2) a vibratory generator (23, Figure 2)) attached to an
internal wall (32, Figure 2) of the housing corresponding to the
claimed vibration generator; (3) a removable cover (element 20,
Figures 1 and 2 and column 3, lines 17-21) fabricated to
correspond with the claimed cover; (4) an integrated circuit
timer (308, Figure 3) corresponding to the claimed circuit timer;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007