Ex parte HAMMER - Page 6

                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.                                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007