Appeal No. 2004-1750 Application No. 09/985,937 every limitation of claims 24 and 25 on appeal. More particularly, while it is true that Garber discloses a method of providing a weight bearing support surface for railroad rails and a method of maintaining desired spacing between railroad rails, wherein each method comprises attaching rails to at least one railroad tie, we note that the railroad ties seen in Garber are clearly not of the particular type and construction set forth in appellants' claim 1 on appeal, which tie is specifically required to be used in the method defined in claims 24 and 25 on appeal. When establishing anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, all limitations recited in a claim must be considered and the examiner must show where each and every feature of the claimed invention is described in the allegedly anticipatory reference. Like appellants, we note that the examiner may not arbitrarily decide that some claim limitations or features can simply be ignored, as has happened in the present application. Since Garber does not disclose or teach, either expressly or inherently, each and every limitation of appellants' claims 24 and 25 on appeal, it follows that the examiner's rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will not be sustained. 44Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007