Appeal No. 2001-1453 Page 3
Application No. 08/990,945
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Robb in view of Frantz and Hand.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 17) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 16) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
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 Rejection Under Section 102
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 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, for example, 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).
The appellant’s invention is directed to a U-shaped clip adapted for retaining a
rolled-up configuration of a portion of a collapsible container that holds a quantity of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007