Appeal 2007-1920
Application 09/731,437
2. According to the Specification, “[w]hat is clear is that the holder must
provide for a means to support a bow, extend this support at a selected
distance from a hunter's body and below the hunter's waist and allow for
the direct or indirect engagement of the holder with the hunter or the
hunter's apparel” (Specification 12:2-5).
3. Jones does not disclose a spacing member as required by each of the
appealed claims (Jones, passim).
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). Analysis
of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins
with a determination of the scope of the claim. We determine the scope of the
claims in patent applications “not solely on the basis of the claim language, but
upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364,
70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The properly interpreted claim must
then be compared with the prior art.
To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make
clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013