Ex Parte Hopkins - Page 7



             Appeal No. 2006-2280                                                Page 7                     
             Application No. 10/244,011                                                                        
             claim.  Answer, p. 7 (citing In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re                      
             Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).                                                             
                   The appellant argues that Shrader is non-analogous art, and that Shrader                    
             does not anticipate because it fails to solve the problem solved by the structure of              
             the claims.  Brief, p. 12 and Reply Brief, p. 2.  The appellant further argues that the           
             jacket of Shrader does not anticipate the claimed support, because it is “not                     
             adapted for mounting on a crutch or a cane” as claimed.  Brief, p. 12.                            
                   It is well settled that the question of whether a reference is analogous art is             
             irrelevant to whether that reference anticipates.  See State Contracting &                        
             Engineering Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1068, 68 USPQ2d                       
             1481, 1488 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d                   
             1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that "[a] reference may be from an entirely                  
             different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention or may be directed to              
             an entirely different problem from the one addressed by the inventor, yet the                     
             reference will still anticipate if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation         
             recited in the claims.")  Further, the recitation of a new intended use for an old                
             product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.  Id. at 1477, 44                    
             USPQ2d at 1432.  As such, we reject the appellant’s arguments that Shrader is not                 
             anticipatory because it is directed to non-analogous art and is directed to a different           
             problem than the claimed invention.                                                               
                   The question before us, raised by the appellant’s other argument, is whether                
             Shrader explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims.                
             The appellant argues that Shrader does not disclose the limitation of a support                   
             adapted for mounting on a crutch or a cane.  This limitation is found only in the                 
             preamble of claim 1.  We must determine whether this language of the preamble                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007