Appeal 2006-1453
Application 10/662,344
wavy-shaped support means 36 and 38 connecting the column 37 to the foot
portions 35 and 39.
Kraus is cited to show a hole plug for an automobile body having four
guide elements or pilot members 60, 62, 64, and 66. The Examiner states
that these are guide members as claimed in claim 7-11.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The prior art may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it
non-novel, either expressly or inherently. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig.,
301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied,
538 U.S. 907 (2003). Express anticipation occurs when the prior art
expressly discloses each limitation (i.e., each element) of a claim. Id. In
addition, “[i]t is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when
the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless
inherent in it.” Id.
“A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the pertinent art.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985, 78 USPQ2d 1329,
1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2006) citing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000); Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “The ultimate
determination of whether an invention would have been obvious is a legal
conclusion based on underlying findings of fact.” Id. (citing In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In assessing whether subject matter would have been non-obvious
under § 103, the Board follows the guidance of the Supreme Court in
Graham v. John Deere Co. 383 U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ at 467. The Board
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013