Appeal 2007-1707
Application 10/335,597
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Because Assaker does
not describe a bone plate comprising a “resilient aperture . . . being
configured to expand and contract for receiving a bone screw,” we find that
it does not anticipate claim 1. We reverse the rejection of independent claim
1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-11.
Anticipation by Nelson
Claims 1-3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Nelson.
Nelson describes a retaining device to a hold a pair of socks for
washing and drying (col. 1, ll. 40-45). The Examiner contends that Nelson’s
device meets all the limitations of claim 1.
Nelson discloses a plate comprising a body 1 including first and
second surfaces (see Figure 2), and at least one resilient
aperture 3 extending through the first and second surfaces. The
at least one aperture has a predefined shape and size and is
configured to expand and contract. The plate also has at least
one slit extending from the aperture 3, and a hole 112. The
aperture has a circular shape (see Figures 1 and 2).
(Answer 4.)
Appellants contend that Nelson cannot anticipate claim 1 because
“Nelson lacks any mention or suggest of a bone plate” (Br. 6). They assert
that “it must be shown that Nelson’s sock rack can be utilized as a bone
plate” (Br. 6). They also argue that “[e]very object that has a resilient
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013