Appeal No. 2006-0088 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/183,952
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 appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3 to 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (b). 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 examiner's findings regarding the teaching of Le Fol can be found on pages
3 and 4 of the answer. In regard to the recitation in claim 1 of a "vibration side attaching
member comprising a top portion and a spindle portion", the examiner finds:
. . . the spindle portion is interpreted as the structure receiving a portion of
the rubber isolator, this is consistent with the applicant's embodiment as
illustrated in figure 4 [answer at page 3].
. . . The applicant's definition of a spindle appears to read upon element 3
of Le Fol. The element in question is in fact a short tapered shaft. It is
unclear to the examiner what issues the applicant has with this element
and why they do not consider it to be a shaped as a spindle. It is noted
that the shape of element 10 in the instant application is substantially the
same as element 3 in Le Fol [answer at page 7].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007