Appeal No. 2005-2606 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/077,718
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Stoll. We initially note that a claim is anticipated only if each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631,
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). 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.
The examiner is of the opinion that the subject matter of claim 22 is described
in Stoll. Claim 22 is directed to a clamping mechanism which includes:
a clamping arm rotatably mounted on the rod, said clamping
arm being rotatable through 360° about an axis of rotation,
said clamping arm and said housing each defining a
supporting surface for engaging said object.
Stoll discloses a foot rest. There is no disclosure in Stoll directed to a clamping
mechanism or arm.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007