Ex Parte Masting - Page 5

               Appeal 2007-3934                                                                            
               Application 10/324,860                                                                      
               hollow interior of the shell 202 into two compartments: a first or dry towel                
               compartment 226 and a second or pre-moistened towelette compartment                         
               228” (McClymonds, col. 8, ll. 40-46).                                                       
                      Therefore, rather than teaching a conformation wherein the second                    
               substrate is located within at least a portion of the rolled first substrate’s              
               cylindrical interior space, McClymonds’ two substrates are contained within                 
               an apparatus that ensures their physical separation.  The Examiner has not                  
               identified, and we do not find, a teaching in McClymonds wherein the                        
               second substrate is located within at least a portion of the rolled first                   
               substrate’s cylindrical interior space.  Thus, McClymonds fails to teach all of             
               the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11.                                             
                      Anticipation requires that every element and limitation of the claimed               
               invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the                 
               claim.  Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58                   
               USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  For the foregoing reasons we find                      
               that McClymonds fails to anticipate Appellant’s claimed invention.                          
               Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.                        
               § 102(b) as being anticipated by McClymonds.                                                

                                             CONCLUSION                                                    
                      In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.                  
               § 102(b) as being anticipated by McClymonds.                                                

                                               REVERSED                                                    




                                                    5                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013