Appeal No. 2004-2042 Page 6
Application No. 10/019,269
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Schenk.
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."
The examiner's position (answer, pp. 3-6) is that the method claimed is relatively
broad and appears to read on the well-known anti-lock brake system of Schenk wherein
the brakes are actuated and released intermittently and/or repeatedly in a brief period of
time so as the wheel does not slip or lock on different road surface conditions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007