Appeal No. 2004-2256
Application 10/042,738
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief as well as to the
final Office action and Answer for a complete discussion of the
opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellant and by the
examiner respectively concerning these rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims.
Concerning the § 102 rejection, it is well settled that
anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of the claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Here, it is the examiner’s finding that the distal barb
of Hopper’s barbed flanges (i.e., see elements 35, 36, 38 and 39
of patentee’s drawing) corresponds to the first connector means
1(...continued)
in view of Hopper) as being merely different modes of expressing
the same rejection, namely, a § 103 rejection based on the
combined teachings of the two applied references.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007