Appeal No. 2005-2135 Παγε 5 Application No. 10/038,910 piston or similar element can work on a fluid." Appellants have not cogently explained, nor is it apparent to us, why Smalley’s tubular housing 6 falls short of meeting this definition of “fluid cylinder” or why the washers 18, 19a and bushing 21 are not pistons and an elastically deformable sealing member (note the compression of bushing 21 against the tubular housing in Figure 5), respectively, notwithstanding that Smalley does not expressly refer to these elements as such. While anticipation requires the disclosure of each and every limitation of the claim at issue in a single prior art reference, it does not require such disclosure in haec verba. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977). In addition, it does not require that the prior art reference "teach" what the application at issue teaches. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).. Appellants also argue, with respect to claim 22, that Smalley's bushing 21 is squeezed between linearly moveable washer 18 and load transfer element 10, which is fastened by welding or the like to the housing 6 and thus is not linearly displaceable in the fluid cylinder as claim 22 requires the pistons to be, and not between two pistons (brief, pages 6-7). As pointed out by the examiner on page 4 of the answer, although the load transfer element 10 assists in squeezing the bushings, the squeezing still takes place between the two washers 18, 19a. Appellants' argument is thus not well taken.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007