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
Heyman.
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007