Appeal No. 2003-0104 Page 4
Application No. 09/659,792
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection based on Leslie
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Leslie.
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).
The appellant's argue (brief, pp. 4-5; reply brief, pp. 1-2) that there is no basis to
conclude that a spigot-handle could interact with the handles 14 of Leslie in the manner
claimed. We agree. In that regard, the claimed band into which a spigot-handle may
be maintained hooked by twist on the spigot resulting from weight of a spigot tube and
any beer in the tube acting from a combined center of gravity outwards from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007