Appeal No. 1998-2026
Application No. 08/508,738
reference, i.e., all limitations of the claims are found in
the 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).
The rejection based upon the Price reference
We reverse the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Price. It follows that the
rejection of claims 7 through 10 is likewise reversed since
these claims stand or fall with claim 6, as indicated above.
This panel of the board fully comprehends the examiner’s
analysis of the Price teaching (answer, pages 4 through 7).
However, akin to appellant’s position (brief, page 5), we are
of the view, based upon the overall teaching of Price, that
one having ordinary skill in the art would not consider the
movement of the centrally pivoted bottom door 42 (Fig. 1) to
be away from the discharge end of the compactor “in the
direction of discharge,” as set forth in claim 6. It is for
this reason that the rejection of claims 6 through 10 must be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007