Appeal 2007-3304
Application 10/488,775
(Answer 4.)
“It is well settled that a claim is anticipated if each and every
limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art
reference.” Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354,
1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We find that Raeburn
teaches each and every limitation of claim 1, as set forth by the Examiner,
and the rejection is affirmed.
In the case before us, Appellant is arguing that the sash of Raeburn, as
it is made from a woven material, allows the tassel to hang freely from the
waist of the wearer (Br. 5). Therefore, Appellants assert, the tassel does not
lie against the leg and remain upright and viewable during normal movement
of the wearer (Br. 5). According to Appellant:
Claim 1 of the present application had been previously
amended to clarify that the material of the planar element is of
sufficient stiffness to lie against the leg and allow the images to
remain viewable during normal movement of the wearer. As
described in the specification of the present application and
mentioned above, the planar element could be “formed of a
flexible or resilient material such as polyester which is
sufficiently stiff or is treated to be sufficiently stiff to ensure
that, in normal circumstances such as normal movement or
normal external forces such as the wind, it lies against the leg of
the wearer in a sufficiently flat manner that the images remain
viewable at all times . . .” In other words, the material is not
free to move like the tassel member . . . described [by] Raeburn.
(Id. at 5-6 (emphasis in original).)
All that is required by claim 1is that material of the planar element be
“of sufficient stiffness to lie against the leg, in use” such that “the images to
remain viewable during normal movement of the body and normal external
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013