Appeal 2006-2888
Application 10/318,425
1 confined between the side rails. The rungs are secured to the side rails by
2 the bending of the slots 3 (Tolman 1:95-104). There are no other securing
3 means used to secure the rungs to the side rails. The Tolman device can be
4 used as a ramp for an appropriately sized vehicle such as a toy vehicle.
5 Tolman is reasonably related to the problem that the Appellant faces
6 i.e., assembling a device which includes two side rails, rungs confined
7 within the slots of the two side rails and a connecting member for connecting
8 the ends of the side rails.
9 Lucht discloses a truck ramp having first and second side rails 22.
10 Rungs 54 are received in slots 48 in the first and second side rails 22. The
11 rungs are secured in the slots 48 by bolts 62 (Lucht, col. 4, ll. 32-33).
12
13 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
14 The prior art reference need not expressly disclose each claimed
15 element in order to anticipate the claimed invention. See Tyler Refrigeration
16 v. Kysor Indus. Corp., 777 F.2d 687, 689, 227 USPQ 845, 846-847 (Fed.
17 Cir. 1985). Rather, if a claimed element (or elements) is inherent in a prior
18 art reference, then that element (or elements) is disclosed for purposes of
19 finding anticipation. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
20 628, 631-33, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1052-54 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S.
21 827 (1987).
22 Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is
23 analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless
24 of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of
25 the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013