Appeal No. 96-2271
Application 07/995,047
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Anticipation by a prior art
reference does not require either the inventive concept of the
claimed subject matter or recognition of inherent properties that
may be possessed by the reference. See Verdegaal Brothers Inc.
v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987). It also does not require that the
reference
teach what the applicant is claiming, but only that the claim 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).
The first of the anticipation rejections is based upon
Sugarbaker. We share the examiner's view that all of the
structure recited in claim 1 reads on the Sugarbaker clamp.
Using the language of claim 1 as a guide, Sugarbaker discloses a
device which in our view clearly appears to be capable of
providing communication through a wall of body tissue. It
comprises an outer part 7, which could be placed on the outer
surface of a tissue wall, and it has a first central opening
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007