Appeal 2007-2606
Application 10/903,376
picture 108, a flexible transparent sheet 106, and a
backing member 12. The frame sections each have
two ends and a slot. The frame sections are joined
at their ends for forming a rectangular frame. (See
column 4, lines 29-52). [Answer 5, ¶ 3.]
[8] The Examiner found that claims 1, 2, 4 and 9 are anticipated by
Wiener (Answer 5, ¶ 2).
[9] Appellant argues that the "flexibly pressed ... into the opposing
grooves to secure the item within the picture frame" claim language
imparts a distinctive structure to the opposing grooves recited in the
claimed invention, which distinguishes over the opposing slots
disclosed by Wiener (Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2-3).
[10] In particular, Appellant argues that Wiener discloses sliding flexible
sheet 106 into a slot at the top of the frame rather than flexibly
pressing it into opposing grooves (Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 3).
[11] Appellant does not otherwise articulate how the opposing slots recited
in the claims differ structurally from the opposing slots described by
Wiener.
Other findings of fact follow below.
III. Anticipation
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 9 stand rejected under § 102(b) as anticipated by
Wiener. Appellant has not argued the separate patentability of claims 1, 2, 4
or 9. Therefore, we decide the issue of anticipation on the basis of claim 1.
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(v).
Anticipation requires disclosure of each and every claim limitation in
a single prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently. MEHL/Biophile
Int'l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013