Appeal No. 2005-1237
Application No. 10/227,631 5
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 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).
The appellants contend that the Koefelda reference is not
anticipatory with respect to the subject matter so rejected due
to its failure to meet certain limitations in claims 11, 14 and
24. More specifically, the appellants submit that Koefelda lacks
response to the recitations in independent claim 11 of (1) a
finger receiving area defined between an outer handle member and
the outer surface of a wall of an inner handle member which has
an inner surface defining at least one container-receiving pocket
and (2) a hand-opening area defined in part by a bottom portion,
the recitation in dependent claim 14 that the wall of the inner
handle member extends upwardly at a center point of the handle
structure, and the recitations in independent claim 24 of (1) a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007