Appeal No. 2000-0449
Application No. 08/636,614
Rejection (1) accordingly will not be sustained.
Rejection (2)
"To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477 44, USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant’s only
argument with respect to rejection (2) is that the end seams
37 of Stanley’s outer shell means 31 do not constitute "at
least one extension tab for attaching the device to a holding
mechanism," as required by claim 16, part (B) (as amended).
We do not consider appellant’s argument to be well taken.
As illustrated in Figure 7, each seam 37 of the Stanley
thermal pack clearly is an "extension tab." The fact that
Stanley’s tabs are not disclosed as being used for attaching
the device to a holding mechanism, as recited in claim 16, is
of no moment, because recitation of a new use for an old
product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.
In re Schreiber, supra. The law of anticipation does not
require that the reference "teach" what appellant’s
application teaches, but only that the claim "reads on"
something disclosed in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007