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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007