Appeal No. 2002-2336
Application 09/081,765
transmitting and withstanding all of the flux of forces that
might be transmitted between the hot and cool parts of the
machinery unit.
An anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established when a
single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element or limitation of
a claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (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, we observe that the law of
anticipation does not require that the reference teach what
appellants have disclosed 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). In the present case, we agree with the examiner
that Franke discloses a machinery unit that is fully responsive
to, i.e., reads on, that set forth in appellants’ representative
claim 1 on appeal and is inherently capable of functioning in the
manner required in independent claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007