Appeal No. 2003-0104 Page 5
Application No. 09/659,792
container, with a spigot spout pointing downwards is not readable on2 the handles 14 of
Leslie. While the handles 14 of Leslie's insulated carrier may be a band which in a
general sense would be inherently capable of securing the spigot of a keg tap as
alleged by the examiner (final rejection, p. 3), there is no basis to conclude, and the
examiner has not even alleged, that the handles 14 of Leslie's insulated carrier are
inherently capable of maintaining a spigot-handle therein hooked by twist on the spigot
resulting from weight of a spigot tube and any beer in the tube acting from a combined
center of gravity outwards from the container, with a spigot spout pointing downwards.
Thus, the claimed band is structurally and functionally different than the handles 14 of
Leslie's insulated carrier.
Since all the limitations of independent claim 1 and claim 5 dependent thereon
are not met by Leslie for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The anticipation rejection based on Pulli
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Pulli.
2 The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is
encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the
court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d at 772, 218 USPQ at 789, it is only necessary for the
claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the
reference, or 'fully met' by it."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007