Appeal No. 95-4852
Application 08/224,090
As for the first rejection, 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 20 recites a machine for conditioning and dispensing
loose fill insulation material comprising, inter alia, “first
means in the housing for dispersing the insulation material and
conveying the insulation material in one direction in the housing
toward the exit opening”. The sole issue raised in this appeal
by the appellant with regard to the examiner’s anticipation
rejection is whether Woten discloses structure which performs the
foregoing dispersing and conveying function. The examiner
contends that the auger 18 in Woten’s insulating machine meets
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007