Appeal No. 2006-1282 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/361,899
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 11 to 15 and 17 to 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 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 finding regarding this rejection can be found on page 2 of
the final rejection.
The appellant argues that the examiner is in error in finding that the element 28 is
both the grasping portion and the seating portion.
We do not find this argument persuasive because it is the shaped surfaces of 28
which the examiner finds is the grasping portion. In our view, it is the outer periphery of
surfaces 28 which are inherently capable of functioning as a seating portion. We note
that it is the different surfaces of 52 and 62 of gripping element 50 which form
appellant’s grasping and seating portions respectively.
Appellant argues that there is no evidence that element 28 is capable of
functioning as a seating portion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007