Ex Parte Leaphart et al - Page 11

                Appeal 2007-4073                                                                               
                Application 10/739,417                                                                         
           1    15) Ruo states that its parts are made of PVC plastic or other suitable                        
           2    material.  (Id. at col. 1, ll. 53-54).                                                         
           3                                                                                                   
           4    16) Ruo’s washers are fixed on a piston with adhesives used to stick them                      
           5    together.  (Id. at col. 1, ll. 54-59).                                                         
           6                                                                                                   
           7                 3. Schaefer, U.S. Patent 4,813,343                                                
           8    17) Schaefer describes a ringless piston construction having a resilient                       
           9    outer member formed from a material, such as nitrile rubber.  (Schaefer,                       
          10    Abstract).                                                                                     
          11                                                                                                   
          12    18) Schaefer states that its improved ringless piston is formed with a                         
          13    material, such as nitrile rubber, the material having a hardness in the range                  
          14    of from 60 to 80 durometers.  (Id. at col. 1, ll. 41-52).                                      
          15                                                                                                   
          16                               PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                   
          17          During prosecution of a patent application, claims are given their                       
          18    broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.  In re                   
          19    Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969)                               
          20    (unpatented claims given broadest reasonable construction consistent with                      
          21    specification).                                                                                
          22          Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is a question of fact.  Brown v.                      
          23    3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  A claim                       
          24    is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is                     
          25    found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior art reference.               



                                                      11                                                       

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013