Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 14 and 16) and to the final rejection and answer (Papers No.
10 and 15) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8
through 10 and 15
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). It is not necessary that the
reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only
that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or
fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Pajon discloses an anti-submarining device for a vehicle
seat 1, which seat includes a backrest framework 2, a seat pan
framework 3 and a pair of slides 4. In general, the anti-
submarining device includes a cross-member 5 extending
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007