Appeal No. 98-1523 Page 4
Application No. 08/705,744
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We initially note that all of the rejections are under 35
U.S.C. § 102. 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 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it
is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim
are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 18,
20, 23 through 25 and 27 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Warner. The examiner is
of the opinion that all the features of the claimed invention
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007