Appeal No. 2000-1668 Page 3
Application No. 08/948,052
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We initially
note that 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).
Appellants argue that Dragoo does not disclose a “transversely extending single
band of adhesive” as is recited in claim 5 from which claims 6 to 8 and 10
depend. The appellants argue that the adhesive in Dragoo is a bead rather than a
band of adhesive.
The examiner argues that adhesive 78 disclosed in Dragoo is a band of adhesive
as recited in claim 5. The examiner points to the American Heritage dictionary page
attached to the brief by the appellants which defines a “bead “ as a strip of material and
defines a “band” as a strip.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007