Appeal No. 2006–0033 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/764,302
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art patent to Gunnarson,
and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Anticipation is established only 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).
Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:
A wrench for gripping any one of a plurality of cylindrical workpieces in a
progressive sequence of different diameters comprising, a handle having
longitudinally opposite ends, a fixed jaw on one of said ends, said fixed jaw
comprising a plurality of teeth laterally therealong and facing longitudinally
outwardly of said one end, said teeth including a plurality of discrete teeth, each
discrete tooth being for providing just single tooth contact with a different one of
each of the plurality of cylindrical workpieces in a progressive sequence of
different diameters, a pivotal jaw member having first and second jaw faces at an
angle to one another and each including a plurality of teeth facing inwardly of
said one end, said pivotal jaw member being mounted on said one end for
displacement of said first and second jaw surfaces about a jaw axis toward and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007