Appeal No. 98-0516
Application No. 08/400,328
(Revised Brief, page 1), the fact is that it still exists, and
therefore we are constrained to sustain this rejection.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claim 29 stands rejected as being anticipated by
Edelhoff. It is axiomatic that 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. See, for example, In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
Claim 29 is directed to a refuse collection vehicle that
comprises a cab, a body, and a front end loader having an arm
and arm rotating means and a fork and fork rotating means.
The claim further requires that there be means for controlling
and coordinating operations of the arm rotating means and the
fork rotating means to move a portable container supported on
the fork “along a plurality of preselectable paths of travel
above the cab” between a portable container loading position
and a portable container dumping position. As explained on
pages 13-17 of the appellants’ specification, the purpose of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007