Appeal 2006-1490
Application 10/116,534
INTRODUCTION
Appellant’s Request for Rehearing (filed Oct. 14, 2006) contends that
we erred in our Decision on Appeal entered August 15, 2006, in which we
sustained the rejection of claims 1-16.
OPINION
In our Decision we sustained the Examiner’s rejection of the claims
because the Examiner’s findings supported the rejection, while Appellant’s
arguments, based on argued claims 1 and 9, failed to overcome the rejection.
In particular, we agreed with the Examiner that the sleeve-like housing and
device housing of Ernst, as identified by the Examiner, are secured to each
other in such a manner that functional surfaces or contours are aligned with
each other in the manner recited in the claimed invention. (Decision 4.) We
have considered Appellant’s further remarks in the Request and we remain
convinced that the Examiner’s rejection is well founded.
In the § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 the Examiner reads the “sleeve-
like housing” on housing 10 of Ernst, and the “device housing” on structure
including front plate 5 and table plate 1 of the reference.2 As described in
the detailed description and shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Ernst, sleeve-like
housing 10 of Ernst is fastened to device housing 5. Each of the housings
thus has a precisely machined functional surface that contacts the precisely
machined functional surface of the other.
2 For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every
element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single
reference. However, this is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013