Appeal No. 2000-0606
Application No. 08/755,435
must be no difference between the claimed invention and the
reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill
in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research
Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001,
1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the reference
teach what the subject application teaches, but only that the
claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that
all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met
by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d
760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
We understand the examiner's position to be that claim 1
reads on the Downham dispenser as follows. The Downham
dispenser comprises an outer housing (cabinet formed of bottom
10, side walls 11 and dispensing front 12) defining an
interior space; stacking means (adaptors 29 and 32) mounted
within the outer housing for holding a stack of paper napkins
within the interior space; and a dispensing face (front 12)
defined in the outer housing proximate the stacking means, the
dispensing face having a central portion and a dispensing
throat (cut out 21) located in the central portion, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007