Appeal 2007-0229
Application 10/968,436
and a cover component for selectively opening and closing the mouth.
(Jacober, col. 1, ll. 14-20).
8. Jacober does not teach a closed top and at least one side wall having a
first opening proximate the top of the housing and a second opening
proximate the bottom of the housing as required by claim 1.
9. Kirkendall teaches an insulated beverage box storage and carrying case
for use with rectangular dispensing cardboard beverage containers, such
as box-type wine containers (Kirkendall, col. 1, ll. 6-11).
10. Kirkendall does not teach at least one side wall having a first opening
proximate the top of the housing and a second opening proximate the
bottom of the housing as required by claim 1.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if 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. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631,
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable
over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75
USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013