Appeal No. 96-0563
Application 07/540,839
time of appellants' invention, as reflected by the applied
references, it is our conclusion that the examiner's rejection
of claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is well founded,
but that the rejections of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
and of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not well founded.
Our reasoning for this determination follows.
Considering first the rejection of claim 30 under §
102(b), we initially observe that an anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848
F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.1984). Additionally, the law of anticipation does not
require that the reference teach what the appellants are
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-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007