Ex parte C.A. BUFFINGTON, et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 96-3544                                                          
          Application No. 08/296,856                                                  

               We turn first to the examiner's rejection of independent               
          claim 11 based on 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by                
          Heyman.  After considering the teachings of Heyman, we agree with           
          the appellants that the claimed invention is not anticipated by             

               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 issue presented by the examiner and the appellants in              
          this appeal is whether or not the recitation of claim 11 that               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007