Appeal No. 2004-1541
Application No. 10/003,785
relative to the rear surface (11) of the wall to
receive the fastener structure (18) through the wall at
the location of the predetermined position to which the
anchor plate has been rotated and into the anchor plate
along its length spaced from the insert (20).
(Emphasis added).
See fact finding 18 on page 5 of the answer.
On pages 4 and 5 of the reply brief, Appellant replies:
The purpose of the language in claim 1, as quoted
above, is to structurally set forth, and thus clearly
distinguish from the disclosure in McSherry et al so as
to define that the point of entry for the recited "at
least one fastener structure" is through the wall at
any location along the predetermined length of the
anchor plate means. The any location", as set forth in
claim 1, means being spaced from one side of the insert
means and from the other side of the insert means and
"also" being spaced at a predetermined distance from
the center of the insert means. This would place such
"at any location" entirely away from the center of the
insert means. The "at least one fastener structure,"
therefore does not extend into the center of the insert
means, as alleged by the Examiner and as is the case
with the bolt (18) in the McSherry et al patent. This
is a distinction between the two disclosures that the
Examiner appears not to have recognized because she
alleges in her argument that Appellant's element 40 or
40' is both the "means" (from subparagraph c) of
Appellant's claim 1), and the "at least one fastener
structure" (from subparagraph d) of Appellant's claim
1).
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007