Appeal No. 2002-0589
Application No. 09/604,216
We cannot sustain the anticipation rejection.
Appellant’s claim 1 sets forth a buoyancy engine having one
or more rings, with a feature being that compressed gases input
into a vessel through a compressed gas injector are routed
through collectors to direct the gas into gas-holding spaces of
the rings. As seen in appellant’s Fig. 1, a compressed air
injector 7 inputs gas 9 to collectors 6, from which collectors
gas is directed into gas-holding spaces 2 of the ring 1.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Spada, 911
F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., 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
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007