Appeal 2007-1219
Application 10/798,635
ISSUES
The issues for consideration on appeal are whether Appellant has established
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 on the ground of lack of novelty
and claim 4 on the ground of obviousness.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Norton discloses a moveable farm enclosure comprised of several fence
units that can be dragged through a pasture by a farm tractor. Each of the fence
sections or wall units includes a frame member with a pair of vertical elements and
at least one horizontal element (col. 1, ll. 44-52). Each of the wall units may
include a barrier element comprised of steel mesh or “chicken” wire. The barrier
may include wind proofing (col. 2, ll. 4-7). The barrier elements may be attached
to the frame member by spot welding or by means of metal wire (col. 2, ll. 9-10).
The vertical metal pipes of the frame member are installed in concrete base units
cast in a convenient shape (col. 2, ll. 60-64). Preferably, the base units are smooth
or rounded so they may slide over the ground with minimum resistance (col. 2, ll.
67-69). The frame members are installed in the base unit by the agency of inserts
60, 70, 80 which are cast in the base units and receive the tubular vertical frame
members (col.6, ll. 41-col. 7, ll. 12).
Venegas has been cited by the Examiner as showing plastic as a coating over
pipes and spanning material that comprise hand rails, guard rails, or fence sections.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The prior art may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it
non-novel, either expressly or inherently. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301
F.3d1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S.
907 (2003). Express anticipation occurs when the prior art expressly discloses each
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013