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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007