Appeal No. 97-3218
Application 08/541,947
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed
invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-1479, 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 Systems, 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007