Appeal No. 95-4994 Page 4
Application No. 08/133,294
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.
Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our
conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
sufficient to establish a case of anticipation with respect to
claim 1. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set
forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to
whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what
subject matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject
matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court
in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007