Appeal 2007-1828
Application 10/772,811
are in agreement with the Appellants that the periphery 32 shown in Figure 6 is an
edge view of the paddle and does not represent a bottom wall that is arcuate about
the axis that is claimed. Since we have found that Thorud does not disclose a
paddle with a bottom wall arcuate about an axis parallel to the shaft, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-14 and 16-22 under § 102.
Turning to the disclosure of Guillemette, we acknowledge the teaching of
Guillemette that such particulate movers can be used not only for snow, but for
throwing and blowing other materials such as grains, straw and the like. Col. 3, ll.
36-40. However, this teaching can in no way ameliorate the problems we have
found with respect to the disclosure of the Thorud reference.
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.3d
1343, 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
limitation (i.e., each element) of a claim. Id. In addition, “[i]t is well settled that a
prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in
that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.” Id.
In Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966), the Supreme Court set out a framework for applying the statutory
language of §103:
[T]he scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the
level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background
the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013