Appeal No. 2000-0104
Application No. 08/850,647
8 and 11, all the claims remaining in the application.
The claims on appeal are drawn to a contact lens case,
and are reproduced in the appendix of appellants’ brief
(pages 6 and 7).
The reference applied in the final rejection is:
Cerola et al. (Cerola) 5,196,174 Mar. 23,
1993
Claims 2 to 8 and 11 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cerola.
Both of the two independent claims on appeal, 2 and 6,
require, inter alia, a coupler which includes “a locking
structure providing a mechanical lock for locking retention of
the catalyst member thereto and for preventing removal of the
catalyst member from said coupler.” The only issue argued by
appellants in this case is whether Cerola discloses structure
meeting this limitation; if not, the claims are not
anticipated. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431
(Fed. Cir. 1997)(“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007