Appeal No. 2006-2526 Application No. 10/377,942 Claims 19 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102 as being anticipated by Hsiao. We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Jul. 16, 2004) and the Examiner=s Answer (mailed Feb. 24, 2006) for a statement of the examiner=s position and to the Brief (filed Dec. 19, 2005) and the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 27, 2006) for appellants= position with respect to the claims which stand rejected. OPINION The examiner has applied Hsiao against the claims in a 35 U.S.C. ' 102 rejection for anticipation. Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner provided illustrations in the Final Rejection with respect to how the claims (e.g., present claim 19) were deemed to read on the Hsiao disclosure. Appellants in the Brief, however, allege that language such as that relating to a body portion Aextending upwardly from@ the retaining potion, and that relating to the first plane and the second plane, distinguish over the reference. In response, the examiner in the Answer reproduces Figures 3 and 5 from the reference along with added material, such as illustrative planes that are drawn and deemed to be within the limitations of claims 19 and 23. Rather than reproduce the -3-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007