Appeal No. 97-3196
Application No. 08/569,275
is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency,
each and every element of the claimed invention. See RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom.,
Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). The law
of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what
the applicant is claiming, but only that the claim on appeal
"read on" something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference. See
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Independent claim 27 requires that there be a
“rectangular holed cage.” As we pointed out above, a cage is
an enclosure. Renne discloses an “enclosing unit 12"
comprising a stationary member 31 and a pivoted member 32.
The term “cage” in the appellant’s claims therefore must be
read on both members of Renne’s enclosing unit 12. The
“adjacent perpendicular semicircular flange with hasp hole”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007