Appeal No. 2000-0789 Page 4
Application No. 08/856,373
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 1 reads as follows:
In the combination with a steel drum having a
cylindrical drum body having a diameter for defining open
circular ends, the drum body including a plurality of
expanded circumferential rings configured about the
cylindrical drum body;
a circular drum head closing one end of the
cylindrical body; and,
a circular drum bottom closing the other end of the
cylindrical body;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007