Appeal No. 1998-1789
Application No. 08/473,129
Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either
the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or
recognition of inherent properties that may be possessed by
the reference (see Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
484 U.S. 827 (1987)) or 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)). It is only necessary that the reference include
structure capable of performing the recited function in order
to meet the functional limitations of the claim (see In re
Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 269, 194 USPQ 305, 307 (CCPA 1977)).
The appellant’s invention is directed to the solution to
problems occurring in the placement of catheters in long-term
situations such as maintenance dialysis. Objectives of the
invention include preventing the tip of the catheter from
moving laterally into contact with the wall of the vessel in
which it is placed and anchoring the tip of the catheter at a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007