Appeal No. 2006-1282 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/361,899
Appellant’s specification discloses that in a seating operation the operative
surface 62 is used to press down on gripping head 14 of the post to ensure that the post
10 is properly seated in root canal 32 (specification paragraph 0018).
In our view, the outer periphery of element 28 is capable of pressing down on the
head of a post and therefore is capable of functioning as a seating portion.
Appellant also argues that there is no suggestion to include a seating portion in
Lee.
We do not find this argument persuasive because the rejection is based on
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and as such it is not necessary that the reference teach or suggest
the subject matter of the claims. It is only necessary that the claims “read on”
something disclosed in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d at
772, 218 USPQ at 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Appellant also argues that Lee does not describe a locking mechanism for
locking the device to prevent loss of an article gripped.
We do not agree, Lee does indeed describe a locking mechanism (col. 8, lines
16 to18) and contrary to appellant’s argument discloses locking the device to prevent
the loss of the article gripped (col. 15, lines 8 to 9).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 11.
We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 12 to 15 and 17 to 20
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007