Appeal No. 97-3661
Application No. 08/456,692
Claims 26, 27, 31, 32, 36, 37, 40 and 41 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Melvin in view
of Belden, Hepburn and Joseph.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
The Examiner’s Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom.,
Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
We find that all of the various walls, openings, sides and
ends which form the funnel recited in independent claims 23, 38
and 42 are disclosed in Melvin, in the relationship required in
these claims. We also find that the separated walls required by
claim 38, and the form of claim 42, are found in Melvin.
However, contrary to the position taken by the examiner, we agree
with the appellant that Melvin does not explicitly teach that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007