Appeal No. 95-2939
Application 08/050,690
rejection and examiner’s answer (Paper Nos. 5 and 14), while the
complete statement of appellant’s argument can be found in the
main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 13 and 18).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied references and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations that
follow.
We initially note that the law of anticipation does not
require that the reference teach what the appellant is claiming,
but only that the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed
in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d
760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In addition, the
discovery of a new property or use of a previously known article
cannot impart patentability to claims to the known article. See
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Therefore, when analyzing the prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 in regard to the recitation in claim 1 of a "strap
accepting channel", it is not necessary that anticipatory prior
art teach a "strap" held within a channel which is disclosed. It
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007