Appeal 2007-1914
Application 10/378,641
11. Rivard discloses an end link for a vehicle stabilizer that uses a nut 34
applied to a threaded end portion 22 of a bolt and a washer 36 disposed
between the nut 34 and an end of a grommet 24 (Rivard, col. 2,
ll. 52-56; Fig. 2).
12. A conventional nut, by itself, is not a sleeve nut. As such, Rivard does
not disclose a sleeve nut.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“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), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of
skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See
also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013