Appeal No. 2006-1951 Παγε 11
Application No. 10/392,140
7 (CCPA 1982)).
Nor are we persuaded by appellants assertion (brief,
page 4) that non-analogous structure cannot form the basis of a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, citing Verdeggal Bros. v. Union
Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ 2d 1051, 1053
(Fed. Cir. 1987). From our review of this case, we find that the
decision states (Verdeggal, at 1053) “[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.3” From our claim construction, supra, we
found that the term “sink” in the preamble did not breathe life
and meaning into the claim, and was not given patentable weight.
The intended use of the sink does not, based upon the facts of
this case, distinguish over the blanks used in the housing
structure of Wennings.
Nor are we persuaded by appellants’ assertion (id.) that
cover 21 of Wennings does not form a floor. Because element 16
is referred to as the shell bottom by Wennings (col. 4, lines 50-
3 Citations omitted.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007