Ex Parte ELKINS - Page 8



          Appeal No. 2001-1418                                                        
          Application 08/022,822                                                      

               generally parallel sides to create a waffle like grid                  
               pattern with rectangular or diamond shaped sealed                      
               portions between the passages.  In the enlarged section                
               of FIG. 4, the passages are indicated as 20 and 21 that                
               intersect at 23.  A rectangular sealed section 24 seals                
               the two thermoplastic panels of the pad together.                      
               . . .                                                                  
               The waffle grid pattern allows the circulating                         
               liquid to flow in several different directions.  Thus,                 
               if a crease in the folded pad should block off one                     
               particular passage, such as 20, liquid can detour                      
               around crimped passage 20 and still flow through the                   
               serpentine series connected fields.  Thus, the                         
               partitioning system between the fields provide[s] major                
               directional guidance for the liquid, while the waffle                  
               grid pattern within each field provides a random                       
               circulation within the field as liquid flows from an                   
               inlet of the field to an outlet of the field [column 2,                
               lines 25 through 65].                                                  
               Anticipation is established only when a single prior art               
          reference discloses, expressly or under 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            

                                          8                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007