Appeal No. 2002-0345
Application No. 09/177,655
anticipation does not require that the reference teach
specifically what an appellant has disclosed and is claiming but
only that the claims 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).
As acknowledged by appellant (supplemental appeal brief,
page 4), the examiner read claim 7 on the Orsulak reference in
the final office action dated January 12, 2001 (Paper No. 18).
Like the examiner, we readily perceive that those skilled in the
air bag art would understand the passenger-side airbag device of
claim 7 to be readable on the air bag module of Orsulak. As
explained, infra, appellant does not specify particular language
of claim 7 itself which is not readable on the Orsulak patent.
The arguments advanced by appellant in the supplemental
appeal brief (Paper No. 19) and the reply brief (Paper No. 21)
fail to persuade us that the content of claim 7 on appeal is not
anticipated by the Orsulak patent. For the most part,
appellant's focus and reference to the invention seems to be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007