Ex Parte Bohacik et al - Page 3

                   Appeal 2007-1951                                                                                               
                   Application 10/392,140                                                                                         

             1                                               ISSUE                                                                
             2            The issue is whether we erred in holding that the teachings of                                          
             3     Wenning were sufficient to anticipate claim 10, and whether we erred in                                        
             4     holding that the teachings and suggestions of Wenning and Just would have                                      
             5     suggested the language of claim 12.  With regard to claim 10, the issue turns                                  
             6     on whether the shell bottom 16 of Wenning meets the claimed floor.  With                                       
             7     regard to claim 12, the issue turns on whether Wenning meets the language                                      
             8     of the claim, or if not, whether the combined teachings and suggestions of                                     
             9     Wenning and Just would have suggested the language of the claim.                                               
            10                                                                                                                    
            11                            PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                                       
            12                                                                                                                    
            13            A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in                                   
            14     the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior                                
            15     art reference.  Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2                                    
            16     USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  The inquiry as to whether a reference                                     
            17     anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the                                    
            18     claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.  As set forth by                                  
            19     the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ                                       
            20     781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on'                                   
            21     something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are                                   
            22     found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."                                                                 
            23                                                                                                                    
            24                                                                                                                    
            25                                     FINDINGS OF FACT                                                               
            26            We make reference to our findings, in the Decision, as to the                                           
            27     teachings and suggestions of Wenning and Just.                                                                 

                                                                3                                                                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013