Appeal No. 98-0177
Application No. 08/577,873
affirmed.
Turning first to the double patenting rejection,
appellants do not argue this rejection. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness double patenting is summarily
affirmed.
Turning to the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4
and 5, we are in agreement with the examiner that Thead
discloses a disposable container 12, a plate 29 covering an
opening in the disposal container, a perforation 33 through
the plate member and a hub wrenching member comprising gears
60 and 61. We further note that supported by plate 29 of the
lid is a means 31 for supporting the barrel vertically aligned
with the perforation. In our view, the means 31 of Thead --
an upstanding cylindrical barrel -- is the same means
disclosed in appellants' specification for providing the
function of supporting the barrel sleeve in appellants'
claimed invention.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007