Appeal No. 2002-0032 Page 3
Application No. 08/514,507
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The guidance provided by our reviewing court with regard to the matter of
anticipation is that it 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).
Claim 10 is directed to a machine for bagging material into bags having a closed
end and an open mouth. According to the claim, the machine comprises a wheeled
frame, a tunnel on the wheeled frame having a material receiving means at an intake
end for receiving the material to be bagged and an output end adapted to receive the
open mouth of a bag, material packing means on the wheeled frame for forcing the
material to be bagged into the bag, and
a non-flexible anchor positioned rearwardly of the intake end of said
tunnel so as to be in the path of material placed in the bag;
said anchor resisting the movement of said bagging machine away from
the bagged material.
The examiner’s position being that claim 10 is anticipated by Cullen, all of the
subject matter recited in claim 10 must be disclosed or taught by Cullen, either explicitly
or by way of inherency. However, whereas the claim requires that the anchor be “non-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007