Appeal No. 97-0991
Application 08/436,660
lines 3 through 9).
With regard to the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claims 10, 21 and 29, anticipation is established only when
a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In support of this rejection, the examiner points to
Fine’s disclosure at “col. 4, lines 59+ regarding materials
and Fig. 1 and 2 and col.3, lines 31+ regarding internal to
external mug attachment” (answer, page 5). The examiner also
explains that
[t]he mug assembly set forth in Figs. 1 and 2 of
Fine employs an adhesive between notch C and edge D.
This adhesive meets the sealing material limitation.
The adhesive between the notch C and edge D, when
the mug is assembled, will have a flat outer surface
as the adhesive will be forced to assume the shape
of the notch and edge, and coat a portion of the
inner and outer surfaces of the notch. The coating
of the inner and outer surfaces of the notch will
occur due to the movement of the adhesive as the
edge is placed in the notch, and forces the adhesive
to fill any void between the notch and edge. Note
the small tolerances between the notch and edge.
Note the flat surfaces disclosed in Figs. 1 and 2.
The adhesive material will provide for frictional
engagement between the surfaces, at least at some
point in the adhesive setting process. The claims
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007