Appeal 2007-1167
Application 10/784,056
telescoping arm 4, and outer arm 16 is an appendage of clamp 5, inner arm
13 is slidably received within clamp 5.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language
consistent with Applicant’s specification is consistent with the Examiner’s
finding. Applicant’s Figure 1 appears to show a support member 20 slidably
received within an appendage of releasable clamp 22 (Spec., Fig. 1).
Watkins also contains a support member (inner arm 13) that is slidably
received within an appendage (outer arm 16 of telescoping arm 4) of a
releasable clamp (clamp 5). Accordingly, we find that Watkins reasonably
describes each and every claim limitation in Applicant’s Claim 1 and the
claimed subject matter as a whole.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejections
To establish the obviousness of the claimed subject matter, all the
claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka,
490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974). “All words in a
claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496
(CCPA 1970).
Claims 1, 6, 11, and claims dependent thereon, stand rejected as
obvious over Blevins, Wright, and Bridgers. Blevins discloses a flexible
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013