Appeal No. 96-4162
Application 08/313,901
(column 8, lines 10 through 13). This shoulder forms a surface which is capable of
engaging the bead of a closure.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the 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 other words, there must be no difference between the
claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in
the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d
1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 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, 772, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claims 1 through 4 and 6 require a process and a mold for molding a “container.”
The insert (12) does contain fluids therein within a fluid handling system and, thus is
considered to be a “container” as broadly claimed. That the male insert (12) of Blenkush is
not a bottle or similar container for storing beverages, as taught by the appellant
(specification, page 1) is not relevant to the issue of anticipation. See Id.
Further, regarding claim 6, the appellant argues that Blenkush does not disclose
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007