Appeal 2007-1167
Application 10/784,056
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejections
“For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102,
every element of a claimed invention must be identically shown in a single
reference.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 677, 7
USPQ2d 1315, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Anticipation can be found when a
claim limitation is inherent or otherwise implicit in the relevant reference.
Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor Industries, Inc., 953 F.2d 1360,
1369, 21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1991). To affirm the Examiner’s
§ 102(b) rejection in this case, we must find that Watkins describes each and
every element of the subject matter defined by Applicant’s Claim 1, either
explicitly or implicitly.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected as anticipated by Watkins. Claim 1 is
directed to a guard having (1) a releasable clamp slidably connected to the
shaft of a grass trimming device, (2) a support member slidably connected
within the clamp, and (3) a guard member connected to and extending
outwardly from the support member (Br. App. A). Watkins contains a
releasable clamp slidably connected to the shaft of a grass trimming device
(Watkins’ clamp 5) and a guard member (Watkins’ protector plate 19)
connected to a support member. Appellant argues that Watkins does not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013