Appeal No. 2002-1807 Page 3
Application No. 09/247,419
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.
Claim 1
The appellant’s invention is directed to an improved shopping cart wherein the
entire basket is movable vertically with respect to the frame that supports it when a load
is placed in the basket, the result being to lower the center of gravity of the cart to make
the cart more safe. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A shopping cart comprising:
a frame;
a basket mounted on the frame; and
biasing means for allowing the entire basket to move
in relation to the frame when a load is placed in the
basket.
The Rejection Under Section 102
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 5 and 18-21 as being anticipated by Nicholl.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See, for example, RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A reference anticipates a claim if it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007