Appeal 2007-1804
Application 10/885,053
misinterpretation of Stein by the Examiner (Br. 9). Accordingly, we will
limit our consideration to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 over Stein.
The remaining claims will stand or fall together with claim 28.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that a prior art reference
describes each and every limitation of a claimed invention with “sufficient
specificity” to establish anticipation. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The issue presented for review with respect to this rejection is: Does
the Stein reference have a disclosure that anticipates the claimed subject
matter? The issue turns on whether Stein describes providing a biasing force
between the nozzle assembly and the canister assembly. We answer this
question in the affirmative.
The Examiner finds that Stein describes a method of reducing
vibration in a vacuum cleaner including a nozzle assembly and a canister
assembly, comprising "providing a biasing force between said nozzle
assembly and said canister assembly to dampen vibration." The Examiner
points to the spring 10a on nozzle assembly 4 as providing a biasing force
(Answer 3). Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s factual findings.
Appellants contend that the torsion spring 10a of Stein is separate
from the canister assembly and does not provide biasing force between the
nozzle assembly in the canister assembly (Br. 9).
Appellants’ contention is not persuasive. Appellants acknowledge
that Stein comprises a torsion spring 10a mounted within the nozzle
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013