Appeal No. 2006-0863 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/323,325
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.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5, 7 to 12, 26 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Adams. We initially note that To support a
rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the
claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner's rationale regarding this rejection can be found on pages 2 to 4 of
the final rejection. Of particular note, in the examiner's view, the arm of Adams has one
end of an arm having a hook 28 formed thereon and the other end of the arm being at
all time totally within the profile of the housing 15. The examiner finds that this other
end of the arm is where reference 22 pointing.
The appellants argue, and we agree, that the portion of the Adams arm where
reference 22 is pointing is not an end. Rather, in our view, the end of the Adams arm is
disposed at reference 27. This end 27 is not at all times totally within the profile of the
housing 15. In regard to the profile of housing 15, we agree with the appellants that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007