Appeal 2007-2558
Application 10/205,948
on a radius or ray. Fig. 2 of Knoepfler shows the housing 6 which extends
like a radius from the base; the plurality of fingers are located at the end of
the radius and thus extend radially outward from it as recited in claim 1
(Knoepfler, col. 2, ll. 59-61, 64-65, col. 4, ll. 18-20, and Fig. 3; FF 2, 5, and
8). Appellants have not specifically articulated what differs between the
claimed “plurality of fingers” and the teeth shown in Knoepfler’s medical
forceps. See also supra fn. 4.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 7, and
8. Claims 9-12 fall with claims 1, 7, and 8 because they were not separately
argued.
Anticipation over Hoogeboom
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Hoogeboom (Answer 5).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “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., Inc. v. Union
Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We
agree with the Examiner (see FF 15-18) that Hoogeboom teaches every
element recited in claim 1, anticipating the claimed invention.
Appellants contend “[s]imilarly to Knoepfler, if the handle of
Hoogeboom is considered to be a base, the end effector is a single edge point
and the tubular sleeve/mobile member pair is a single finger” (Br. 6).
We do not find this argument persuasive for several reasons. As
argued by the Examiner, Hoogeboom’s base 162 supporting the toothed
edges is treated as the part corresponding to the base of claim 1 (Answer 9;
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013