Appeal No. 96-0776
Application 07/953,539
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR 1.196(b), we make the
following new rejection:
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bellis.
Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require
either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or
recognition of inherent properties that may be possessed by the
reference (see Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of
California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Nor does it require that the reference teach what the
applicant is claiming, but only that the claim 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-
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
that the reference include structure capable of performing the
recited function in order to meet the functional limitations of
the claim (see In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 269, 194 USPQ 305, 307
(CCPA 1977)). Thus, the question of whether a reference is
analogous art is not an issue here.
Using the language of claim 1 as a guide, Bellis discloses a
seal assembly for a joint between two joined flanges. The Bellis
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007