Appeal No. 96-1391
Application 08/170,503
As appellants correctly state on page 5 of their
brief:
In order to properly reject claims under
[35 U.S.C.] 102(b), the single cited refer-
ence must show each and every feature of
the claimed invention either expressly or
under principles of inherency. Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771 [,
218 USPQ 781, 789] (Fed. Cir. 1983) [,
cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984)]. If an
element of the claim is expressed in terms
of a means plus function, “absent structure
which is capable of performing the func-
tional limitation of the ’means,’” the
prior art reference is not anticipating.
In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 269 [, 194 USPQ
305, 307] (C.C.P.A. 1977). Means plus
function limitations of a claim “cannot be
met by an element in a reference that per-
forms a different function, even though it
may be part of a device embodying the same
general overall concept.” RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, et al., 730
F.2d 1440, at footnote 5 [, 221 USPQ 385,
389 n.5] (Fed. Cir. 1984). When anticipa-
tion is based upon principles of inherency,
the structure of the prior art reference
must necessarily function in accordance
with the function of the limitations of
the claims in issue. In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326 [, 231 USPQ 136, 138] (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007