Appeal No. 97-0755 Page 9
Application No. 08/400,066
The prior art issues
We sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 5
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/(e) as being anticipated by Lipinski.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a
claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.
As set forth by the court in 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 for the
claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference,
or 'fully met' by it."
5In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we have
selected claim 14 from the appellants' grouping of claims
(brief, p. 2) to decide the appeal on this rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007