Appeal No. 96-0978
Application 08/110,324
2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Moreover, anticipation by a prior
art reference does not require either the inventive concept of
the claimed subject matter or the recognition of inherent
properties that may be possessed by the prior art reference.
Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A prior art
reference anticipates the subject matter of a claim when that
reference discloses each and every element set forth in the claim
(In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); however, 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 (Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
Here, it is the appellants’ position that:
Lavanchy discloses and teaches the use of a
“tubular feed nozzle”, identified by Lavanchy as
element 30, extending radially outward from the
conveyor hub and having an opening below the surface of
the pool formed in the rotating bowl. Lavanchy, Col.
2, lines 62-65. As shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3,
Lavanchy’s nozzle is an enclosed tube. In contrast, a
vane is defined as “one of several usually relatively
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007