Appeal No. 95-3178
Application 08/055,477
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The rejection based upon the Jaynes reference
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teaching of Jaynes, but not
the rejection of claim 6.
At the outset, we recognize that anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. See
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675
(Fed. Cir. 1994), In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984). However, the law of anticipation does not require that
the reference teach specifically what an appellant has disclosed
and is claiming but only that the claims on appeal "read on"
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of
the claim are found in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007