Appeal No. 97-3757
Application 08/298,351
Claydon’s central panel 4, extending from the upper end of wall 5
to a point radially inward of the inner edge of bead 6 (in order
to meet the claimed “third diameter” limitation).
However, in order to meet the final clause (“wherein . . .
panel”) of claim 53, at such point there would have to be a
“discontinuity” between the third part and Claydon’s center
panel 4.
The examiner does not explain where there is any such
discontinuity in the Claydon Fig. 10 container, and no discon-3
tinunity is evident to us, since center panel 4 extends contin-
uously from the axis to the upper end of wall 5. Claim 53 is
therefore not anticipated by Claydon, because the reference does
not disclose either explicitly or inherently, every limitation of
the claimed invention. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The rejection of claim 53 will not be sustained.
Claim 64
In this claim, it is recited in the last five lines that:
MPEP § 1208, items 11(iii) and (v) (page 1200-17), requires that the3
examiner point out “where all of the specific limitations recited in the
rejected claims are found in the prior art relied upon in the rejection” and
“compare at least one of the rejected claims feature by feature with the prior
art relied on in the rejection.” That has not been done in this case.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007