Appeal No. 97-3199 Application No. 08/273,767 claimed invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994), In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach specifically what an appellant has disclosed and is claiming but only that the claims 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). In the present case, we find that the mixing and deflection unit of claim 1 is readable upon the static mixing apparatus disclosed by Knief. More specifically, as we see it, the content of claim 1 is addressed by the Knief apparatus, with its upstream 31, 48 and downstream 50 flow directions, as disclosed (column 6, lines 54 through 68) and depicted (Figure 1). Of particular importance, is the patentee’s express indication (column 6, lines 20 through 28) that it is within 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007