Appeal No. 2004-0749 Page 5
Application No. 09/891,746
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman
v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or
'fully met' by it."
Claims 11, 19 and 27, the only independent claims under appeal, read as
follows:
11. A display system for simulated presentation of a plurality of alternative
arrangements of prospective floor covering elements across a flooring support
surface, the display system comprising:
a support element including a substantially planar display face; and
a plurality of independently manually manipulatable simulated elements,
wherein each of said simulated elements have a rectangular shape substantially
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007