Appeal No. 2003-0304
Application 09/703,302
limitations of that claimed. Thus, Mirville satisfies all
the structural limitations claimed by applicant since the
material(s) to be worked upon (liquid or gaseous hydrogen,
air or liquid oxygen) does not impose any structural
limitations.
We note that an anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 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 the appellant has 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), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984).
With the above as guidance, we look to claim 1 on appeal and
note that this claim is directed to a gaseous-fuel breathing
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007