Appeal Number: 2006-0921
Application Number: 10/083,079
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6 to 11 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bohn. We initially note that to
support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each
element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984). The examiner’s findings in regard to application of Bohn to claim 1
can be found on pages 2 and 3 of the final rejection. We note that the examiner
makes specific reference to the disclosure of U.S. Patent No. 6,312,012, which
corresponds to the European Bohn reference upon which the rejection is based,
because U. S. Patent 6, 312, 012 is in English.
Appellant argues that Bohn does not describe guides that “are tilted by an
amount allowed by a yielding of said foam casing” upon laterally pressing down of
the covering cap as is recited in claim 1, from which claims 2 to 11 depend and
claim 13.
It is the examiner’s view that although Bohn does not explicitly describe
guides that tilt upon the lateral pressing down of the covering, the guides 10 of
Bohn depicted in Figure 1 and guides 26 inherently tilt upon the lateral pressing
down of the covering 6 .
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013