Appeal No. 96-1997 Application No. 08/176,614 Applied Digital Data Sys. Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). Additionally, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the appellant is 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 Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984) (and overruled in part on another issue) SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. Of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1118, 227 USPQ 577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or recognition of properties that are inherently possessed by the reference. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). Also, a reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962). 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007