Appeal No. 97-0145
Application 08/073,327
California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Nor does it 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). It is only necessary
that the reference include structure capable of performing the
recited function in order to meet the functional limitations of
the claim. See In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 269, 194 USPQ 305, 307
(CCPA 1977).
The appellants have not responded directly to the Section
102 rejection; all of their comments concern obviousness. To the
extent that these apply to the rejection on anticipation, they
focus on construction of the pockets which mate with the
projections, as well as the disclosed use to which the
projections and pockets are put in Bettinger. Claim 11 requires
that there be at least one projection having an end wall, and
this reads on pegs 36 of Bettinger, with the end walls being the
top face on the pegs, as shown in Figure 5. The claimed pockets
read on holes 35, each of which has, along the circumferential
side walls, what can be read as “an inner portion, and outer
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007