Appeal No. 97-2821
Application 08/377,720
d) claims 7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herold in view of Yoon.
Reference is made to the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 13) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 14) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
Turning first to the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8 through 10, 12
and 13, it is well settled that anticipation is established 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). It is
not necessary that the reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read
on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully
met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Herold discloses a two-component dispensing gun which includes a housing 41 embodying two
cylindrical chambers or barrels 47, 48, a sausage pack film tube 11 filled with a component disposed in
each of the barrels, a cap 43 mounted at the discharge end of the barrel housing and having outlet
passages 44, 45 in communication with the respective barrels, a nozzle 50 mounted on the cap by a
bayonet connection 51, 46 for receiving the components discharged through the cap, a piston 42
mounted within each barrel for forcing the components from the barrels through the cap and into the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007