Appeal No. 2003-0452 Page 6
Application No. 09/846,714
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).
Anticipation rejection based on Schwarzkopf
In the rejection of claims 50 to 53 as being anticipated by Schwarzkopf, the
examiner determined (final rejection, p. 2) that the claimed subject matter was readable
on the pair of tapered sleeves shown in either Figure 7 or 8 of Schwarzkopf. The
appellant argues (brief, pp. 11-12) that claims 50 to 53 are not anticipated by either
Figure 7 or 8 of Schwarzkopf since Schwarzkopf teaches a pair of tapered sleeves not
a "single pouch" as claimed.
After considering the positions of the examiner and the appellant, we reach the
conclusion that claims 50 to 53 are not anticipated by Schwarzkopf. In that regard, it is
our opinion that one skilled in the art would not have viewed the pair of tapered sleeves
shown in either Figure 7 or 8 of Schwarzkopf as constituting a "single pouch" when in
fact it constitutes two tapered sleeves joined together. Moreover, each sleeve of
Schwarzkopf is open at both ends and therefore is not a bag or a pouch.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007