Appeal No. 1999-2725 Page 5
Application No. 08/763,087
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Independent claim 6 is directed to a kit for collation of commonly sized tools. It
stands rejected as being anticipated by Kupfer. This reference teaches using different
indicators on wrenches in sets in order to indicate whether the set is of metric or English
size and marking each wrench in a series of three wrenches so that the sizes can be
differentiated, Colored vinyl or identifiable grooves are used to accomplish these
purposes. Claim 6 requires that the kit comprise “at least two marking appliques,” which
1
are cutout decorations applied to a larger article. While Kupfer teaches marking the sets
of wrenches, there is no disclosure or teaching of doing so by means of appliques, and
therefore anticipation fails on this basis. The examiner has not responded to this issue,
which was raised by the appellant on page 18 of the Brief. The rejection of claims 6-9
is not sustained.
1See, for example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth edition, 1996,
page 57.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007