Appeal No. 2002-0080 Page 4
Application No. 09/170,216
when the reference discloses every feature of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently (see Hazani v. Int'l
Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) 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 what the appellants are claiming, but only that
the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed 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)).
Anticipation under this section is a factual determination.
See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case before
us, the examiner has determined that Yamagishi discloses, either
expressly or inherently, a golf ball meeting every limitation of
the invention set forth in representative claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the examiner’s
determination as to the correspondence of the applied reference
to the subject matter of representative claim 1 are essentially
limited to the contention that “the artisan would not construe
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007