Appeal No. 2003-0778 Page 7
Application No. 09/564,131
invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no difference between
the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary
skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc.,
927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that
the reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read
on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be
found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Each of the references, Lamkin, Jones and Sainsbury, discloses a loop structure
which appears reasonably capable of being used in combination with a barbecue grill to
retain charcoal outside the inner volume and outside the loop form to control burning of
the charcoal in the manner recited in claim 1 and appellant has not explained why the
metal loop in any of these references is not capable of performing such function. The
Lamkin attachment is used to maintain a kettle raised from the burner or cooking
surface so as to form a heating chamber within the band; the Jones support consists of
a band or ring of metal for sustaining a plate, bowl, cup or other dish above the surface
of the top of a stove or range to prevent burning of the contents thereof and Sainsbury’s
draft controller confines charcoal to a restricted area (inside the loop as illustrated) of
the barbecue grill while at the same time providing draft control. None of the references
cited by the examiner teaches or suggests using the loop of metal material in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007