Appeal 2007-0246
Application 09/854,251
the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), 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.” While all elements of the
claimed invention must appear in a single reference, additional references
may be used to interpret the anticipating reference and to shed light on its
meaning, particularly to those skilled in the art at the relevant time. See
Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-727, 220
USPQ 841, 842-843 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner maintains that Bellare teaches the claimed invention as
recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner has identified that various
pages of Bellare teach the recited limitations of independent claim 1 (Br. 3-4
and 6-7). We find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the claimed invention. Therefore, we look to Appellant’s
Brief to show error in this prima facie case.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding anticipation by
Bellare, but Appellant does not address the merits of the specific teachings
recited in Bellare. Rather, Appellant contends that the totality of the merits
of teachings of Bellare are encapsulated within Appellant’s discussions of
the NMAC and HMAC in the background of the instant Specification. We
cannot agree with Appellant, and we find that Appellant’s arguments to the
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) do not address the merits of the
instant rejection under review based upon the teachings of Bellare.
We find that Appellant’s arguments to AAPA Figures 6-8 at page 5-7
of the Brief do not identify how the applied prior art reference to Bellare
does not teach the claimed invention. The Examiner identifies specific
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013