Appeal No. 1999-0932
Application No. 08/723,889
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the Suzuki reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons which follow, we shall sustain
the examiner's rejection.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp.
v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984). In other words, there must be no difference between the claimed invention and the
reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.
Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d
1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject
application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e.,
that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v.
Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
We agree with the examiner that the Suzuki disk brake anticipates the subject matter of
the appellants' claims. To aid in the discussion of how the claims read on the Suzuki disk
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007