Appeal 2007-0796
Application 10/236,088
Appellant's theory that the user could somehow reach into the aperture,
especially given that the diameter of the casing is only somewhat larger than
that of a pen cap, is not well founded.
We appreciate that Klophaus does not expressly mention or show the
aperture or discuss its relationship with tab or loop 9. Nevertheless, the
relevant inquiry is what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood from the express disclosure of Klophaus. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the 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). 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). In this case, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood that the tab or loop 9, and thus at least the
portion of tape 8 connected thereto, must remain outside of casing 4 in order
for the tab or loop 9 to assist in the extension of the tape, as taught by
Klophaus.
For the above reasons, Appellant's argument does not demonstrate the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 as anticipated by Klophaus. The
rejection is sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013