Appeal No. 2001-0483 Page 5
Application No. 08/996,842
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 anticipation rejections
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).
Claims 1, 14 and 21 to 24
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 14 and 21
to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Harz.
Claims 1 and 14 are drawn to a dispensing top for passing
only several kernels of a popped popcorn at a time from an
open-ended container filled with popped popcorn. The
dispensing top has a generally conical shape with the opening
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007