Appeal 2007-0936
Application 10/455,507
ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether Appellants have shown the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10-21 based on anticipation. More
particularly, we decide the following issue we have determined is dispositive
in deciding this appeal:
The sole issue in dispute with respect to independent claims 10 and 16
is whether Imamura discloses “a load beam having a rigid body, a proximal
and a distal end, and a spring region between the proximal end and the rigid
body” (disputed claim language shown in italics).
STATEMENT OF LAW (Anticipation)
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharm., 432
F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing
Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976
F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Arguments and Rejection
Appellants note that the Examiner has read the claimed “load beam”
on Imamura’s “carriage 5” (see Imamura, Figs. 3 and 4A). Appellants assert
that “carriage 5” of Imamura is not a “load beam” (Br. 4). Appellants
further note the Examiner has read the claimed “spring region” on
Imamura’s “access arm 2” [i.e., the area on each side of the trapezoidal
region, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4A] (Br. 5). Appellants contend the area on
each side of “access arm 2” is not a spring region. Appellants argue there is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013