Ex parte KANNER et al. - Page 2

          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,             

               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              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007