Appeal No. 2000-0845 Page 3
Application No. 08/617,829
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejections Under Section 102
Independent claim 24 is directed to a divider panel for separating each one of at
least two tiers of stacked articles from one another wherein the tops and bottoms of the
articles are nestable within one another, and defines the divider panel as comprising
a sheet including at least one substantially continuous annular-shaped
member disposed for operable engagement between the tops and bottoms
of the articles.
This claim stands rejected as being anticipated by the divider disclosed in the European
Patent Application. Of course, anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
2
element of the claimed invention, which means that all of the subject matter recited in
claim 24 must be disclosed or taught by the European reference. The dispositive issue is
whether the European reference discloses the “substantially continuous annular-shaped
2See, for example, RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom., Hazeltine Corp. v.
RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007