Appeal No. 96-1870
Application 08/088,570
Anticipation is established when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not necessary that the
reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only
that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or
fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp.,
713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 3 reads on, and is fully met by, the devices
respectively disclosed by Young, Luhrs and Vranish for the
reasons set forth by the examiner on pages 3 and 4 in the answer.
The appellant’s arguments to the contrary (see pages 6 through 8
in the main brief, Paper No. 18 ) are not persuasive because they2
2The record indicates that the examiner has refused entry
of the reply brief filed by the appellant on April 29, 1996
(Paper No. 22), and that the examiner’s decision in this regard
has been upheld on petition (see Paper No. 25). Accordingly, we
have not considered the arguments advanced in the reply brief in
reviewing the merits of the appealed rejections.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007