Ex parte MILLER - Page 4




          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