Appeal 2006-2990
Application 11/005,250
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an ambiguous
reference. Rather, disclosures in a reference relied on to prove anticipation
must be so clear and explicit that those skilled in the art will have no
difficulty in ascertaining their meaning. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899,
134 USPQ 355, 360 (CCPA 1962).
Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there
must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of
that reference. The motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly
from statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art, or, in some cases, the nature of the problem to be solved. In addition,
the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as
a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references. The test for an
implicit showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a
whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The teachings of Lapeyre are, at best, ambiguous as to whether ribs 20
of adjacent links actually contact or engage one another to transfer forces
between the links so as to satisfy the limitation in independent claims 1 and
11 of first and second module members having first and second fingers,
respectively, the first fingers having first cam surfaces and the second
fingers having second cam surfaces engaging the first cam surfaces to
transfer forces between the first and second module members (FF3 through
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013