Appeal No. 2006–0033 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/764,302
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves two
analytical steps. First, the claim language must be interpreted where necessary by
giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. Secondly, the construed
claim must be compared to the applied prior art reference so as to ensure that each and
every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in the applied prior art reference.
See In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We understand claim 1 as requiring that the fixed jaw provides only a single tooth
contact with a different one of each of a plurality of cylindrical workpieces in a
progressive sequence of different diameters so that when each workpiece of given
diameter in the progressive sequence is gripped by the wrench the workpiece is cradled
between the fixed jaw and the pivoting jaw and is engaged by just a single tooth
provided on the fixed jaw. It is the examiner's contention that Figure 1 of Gunnarson
discloses the appellants' claimed single tooth contact and, in support thereof, the
examiner relies on an enlargement of Figure 1 of Gunnarson (answer, p. 3). ln this
enlargement of Figure 1, the examiner marks three discrete teeth of Gunnarson at
locations 1, 2 and 3 that the examiner maintains provide the claimed single tooth
contact. The appellants contend, referring to the enlargement of Figure 1 which is of
record as ''EXHIBIT 1'' submitted by the appellants on January 26, 2004, that, at
locations 2 and 3 in Figure 1 of Gunnarson two teeth contact the workpiece.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007