Appeal No. 2005-1826
Application No. 10/210,046
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 7 as
being anticipated by Kanter
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
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).
Kanter discloses a stackable container for packaging,
shipping and displaying goods. Of particular interest in this
appeal is the presence in the Kanter container of corner supports
which increase the stacking strength of the container.
The examiner’s determination (see page 4 in the answer)
that Kanter’s container meets the various limitations in
representative claim 1 relating to the single sheet of material,
the side panel members, the front panel member, the rear panel
member, the container bottom, the container forming sections, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007