Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
patenting.
Turning to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Waters, it is well settled that
an anticipation under § 102 is established only when a single
prior
art reference discloses, either expressly or under the
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). The law of
anticipation,
however, 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. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
According to the appellant:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007