Appeal No. 2006-1880
Application No. 10/064,363
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1, 4, and 6 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Scherzinger does fully meet the invention
as recited in claims 1, 4, and 6. Accordingly, we affirm.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458,
221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue at
page 4 of the brief, “the individual insulator pieces of
Scherzinger et al have no part corresponding to the area
identified by the reference numeral 38 in appellants’ structure.”
The Examiner correctly responds at page 5 of the answer
“reference number 38 is not claimed.” Appellants then correct
their argument at page 1 of the reply by pointing to reference
numeral 58 in their figures. We find either version of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007