Appeal 2006-2714
Application 10/228,898
claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Anticipation does not require that
the reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only that the
claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the
limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v.
Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Further, while anticipation requires the disclosure of each and every
limitation of the claim at issue in a single prior art reference, it does not
require such disclosure in haec verba. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193
USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 as anticipated by Sims, citing Deware,
Nelson, Carter, Evensen, and Hurst as extrinsic evidence that steel wool is
an art-recognized sanding surface. The rejection of claim 5, as well as
claims 6 and 8, which Appellant has not argued separately from claim 5, as
anticipated by Sims is sustained.
The third issue presented to us is whether Sims’ V-shaped pad 88
meets the limitation in claim 7 that the V-shaped sanding pad “assumes the
V-shape prior to being secured to the V-shaped carrier” (Br. 8-9). While
Sims clearly illustrates the removable pad 88 (Figs. 8 and 9) assuming a V-
shape when secured to V-shaped auxiliary tool 86, Sims gives no indication
as to whether pad 88 is stable in its V-shape when not secured to auxiliary
tool 86. Therefore, to conclude that pad 88 is stable in its V-shape when not
secured to auxiliary tool 86, as required by claim 7, and claim 9 depending
from claim 7, would require speculation. As discussed above in our reversal
of the indefiniteness rejection of claim 7, the Examiner erred in dismissing
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013