Appeal No. 2005-1227 Page 5
Application No. 10/099,321
In light of the above, we do not find the appellants’ arguments on pages 6 and 7
of the brief and pages 2-4 of the reply brief persuasive that claims 6 and 7 are not
anticipated3 by Spatz. The rejection of claims 6 and 7 is sustained.
The rejection of claim 8 as being unpatentable over Spatz, in view of official
notice, however, is not sustained. Claim 8 requires that “the measurement point is at a
point in time at which the rotational speed of the capping head becomes lower than a
temporary fastening completion step.” Spatz does not disclose sufficient details of the
torque application prior to reaching application moment M1 to dictate whether the
rotation of closure 3 will be slowing at the point when application moment M1 is
reached. Further, the examiner’s statement on page 7 of the answer that “it is well
known that an increase in torque results in a decrease in angular velocity of the turning
member” is not universally true. Specifically, if the applied torque sufficiently exceeds
the resistance to rotation, the angular speed of rotation can be kept constant as the
torque increases. In fact, Spatz’s discussion of the torque reaching the application
moment M1 may be indicative of a motor control adapted to maintain angular rotation
speed. As for the examiner’s taking of official notice that it is “old and well known in the
3 Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
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). In other words, there must be no
difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary
skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565,
1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007