Appeal No. 2003-0240 Page 3
Application No. 09/435,507
switch as said appliance is assembled onto said wall mount . . ." is readable on2 Andis as
set forth on pages 4-5 of our decision mailed April 30, 2003. In that regard, the claimed
wall mount is readable on Andis' holder 17 which a front face (the face appearing in
Figures 1 and 2) and a rear face (the face not shown in Figures 1 and 2, which face
confronts the wall 13), wherein the front face of Andis' holder 17 has a switch-engaging
surface 95 adapted to engage the switch member 45 to open the switch 21 as the hair
dryer is assembled onto the holder 17 in the event an attempt is made to assemble the
hair dryer on the holder when the switch 21 is closed and the hair dryer is, therefore,
energized.
While the holder 17 of Andis has laterally spaced walls or surfaces 95 and 97 on the
front thereof, it is our opinion that such surfaces are part of the front face of the holder 17.
In addition, while it is true that the hair dryer of Andis must be turned sideways so that its
off/on switch 21 engages the wall 95 (which contrasts to the appellant's disclosed
construction), we see nothing in claim 1 which distinguishes claim 1 from Andis. It is
axiomatic that, in proceedings before the USPTO, claims in an application are to be given
2 The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is
encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the
court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the
reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007